Well, sorry so stir you from that nap, but I got hung up in a statement from 500grains that the .470 NE had an only OK reputation for penetration.

I am sure Dan has a lot more literature than I have, and have read beyond his own library, so it would be nice to hear were he have this information from, and from any others who have any information.
Taylor (he IS rather hard to avoid) shot more than a 100 ele's with this cartridge, and was very fond of it. Over the three years he hunted with this rifle only, he had three shots he did not like, they all changed directions inside the elephants scull, causing him to follow up with a second shot. He blamed them all on the bullets shape, which he did not like, and claimed that if the bullet shape of the .465 NE had been used, theese incidents would not have happened.

But that is the only negative thing I have found about the .470 NE.

So what is it?

And if this turns into a thread about slow/fast twist I will send virus infected e-mails to all of you.

Don't worry, the 750gr .577NE 3" solid will save you. At 50yrds.: TKO of 122,8 E=6400Ftlbs and only -4,8" drop at 200yrds.(E=4860!), it's a good one! That's not even the biggest one now!CRAZZZZZY
PS. The .470NE has two things going for it:
1. Ruark, or Hemingway? (can't remember which)
2. Federal ammo

/

Arguendo, assuming that Alf's analysis is correct, since Woodleigh tried to duplicate the exact shape of the old Kynoch bullets, wouldn't that mean that Woodleigh solids would not be the best choice in a .470?

Alf, I thought the form factor was derived empirically (by the French by the way!) through observation of inflight external ballistics on artillery which they mathematically modelled to describe drag and drop, and therefore a ballistic coefficiant. I don't think they tried to model terminal ballistics on bullet performance in an animal.

I'm sure Alf has the key to this puzzle. But I wonder why the .470's standard bullet weight was not more like 530 grains to give an SD equivalent to the 500-grain .458.

Taylor said exactly what ALF said, it was the bullet shape, in his opinion!

I use a 470NE, but haveing said that, I don't think it is any better than the old 450NE 3 1/4", and the 450NE is a far more pleasent cartridge to use! So to that extent, I agree with 500grains on the 470NE. It is good but not magic!

I've used a .470NE on 4 or 5 safaris. Damn lousy cartridge seemed to kill everything including Ele and Buff pretty dead. I used woodleigh solids and softs and Bridger solids on ELE. No complaints about penetration from the DEAD. .470NE does not have any appreciable recoil either. If you can shoot a .375 H&H a .470NE is no problem. sheesh!-Rob

I wonder if we tossed out Woodleigh solids on a table which included those from a 465, 470, 475 #2, 458....etc....who could tell the diff? And if you could, just call Mike at North Fork...he'll get you a couple of bullets that work real fast.

We might be "splitting the red hairs" on this one, as my uncle used to say.

Gary
DRSS
NRA Lifer

Would someone please develop a flanged double rifle round that Dan and Fossdal can love, please?

Please be mindful of shape, length, weight, and proper penetration. Hopefully no one will try and "twist" my request?

500grains is the only one here that has anything negative to say about the recorded history of the 470NE's dangerous game performance. He has appointed himself as the arbiter of all things here, including calibers, twist rates, so you must take that into consideration with regard to anything he has to say about anything. He backs his wide ranging opinions and advice on everything(likely), on the same amount of personal data and experience that he uses to tout the superiority of increased twist being the answer to everything. Which is ZERO!! The 470, for example; it would be perfect with a faster twist.

But, you must also understand that dan is likely in the intermediate stages of either Senile Dementia or Alzheimer's Disease, and the only job we know of that he has had is as a lawyer. The symptoms are eerily similar.
He can be summarized by his signature line RE Jeffe, myself, and others...and the craven response that if he says he is ignoring us...then his arguement is valid. Please, don't be mad at dan, he simply cannot help himself.

Rich
DRSS
NRA Life Member

you know the rest...

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
Arguendo, assuming that Alf's analysis is correct, since Woodleigh tried to duplicate the exact shape of the old Kynoch bullets, wouldn't that mean that Woodleigh solids would not be the best choice in a .470?

Woodleigh copied the later Kynoch offering of steel jacketed solids not the original cupro-nickel jacketed solids that caused bullet deformation problems in all Nitro-express calibers.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
Would someone please develop a flanged double rifle round that Dan and Fossdal can love, please?

Please be mindful of shape, length, weight, and proper penetration. Hopefully no one will try and "twist" my request?

Sir,
I have no dislike for any flanged double rifle round. I was qurious about Dans statemant of "only OK reputation", as I have never heard of this anywere else. My title of this thread was to pop some eyes and to be sure it was seen. If you have found me to be critcal of stated theories, please let me know, it might be caused by my bad english, and I would like to set things stright.

Thanks,

In my limited experience the 470 is plenty for buffalo but somewhat marginal for the factory loads I have used on elephants, with jacketed solids.

Since the 470 and the 416's have about the same muzzle energy, the bigger diameter of the 500 gr. bullets really need a boost in velocity to about 2200 fps. with the increased velocity it should be possible to get better penetration with the goosed up muzzle energy.

But with the flat point solids available now, the factory spec loads at about 2150 fps should give all the penetration needed.

Yes you can see the difference in .458" Woodleighs and .474" Woodleighs when they are sitting side by side.

The .474" Woodleighs have a rounder ogive than pictures of old 470 rounds and bullets would seem to indicate the old bullets did. The old photos show a more pointed bullet with longer taper.

JPK

JPK:

I stand corrected...thank-you. I'm sticking with North Fork.

Gary
DRSS
NRA Lifer

I have used a 470 NE on elephant bulls twice. One of the times I did have a 470 NE TBSH solid rivet a bit on the front shoulder of a bull elephant.

In both cases the elephant was taken.

I have no idea what cased the bullet to rivet. The TBSH does have a flat tip.

On buffalo I never recovered a bullet using the 470 so I can make no comments other than the buffalo died.

My safari experience is somewhat limited (2 ele, 4 buff) but it appears to me the 470 NE works just fine.

By the way I no longer have the 470, I think I realized I am just bolt action trash and bought a 404. I hope it works as well as the 470.

BigB

quote:

Originally posted by Will:
In my limited experience the 470 is plenty for buffalo but somewhat marginal for the factory loads I have used on elephants, with jacketed solids.

Since the 470 and the 416's have about the same muzzle energy, the bigger diameter of the 500 gr. bullets really need a boost in velocity to about 2200 fps. with the increased velocity it should be possible to get better penetration with the goosed up muzzle energy.

But with the flat point solids available now, the factory spec loads at about 2150 fps should give all the penetration needed.

Will,

Did you have penetration issues on a side brain shot, frontal, or shoulder?

I've heard the same from other experienced hunters inregards to the .470. Just wondering what the specifics of your situations were?

quote:

Originally posted by Bill/Oregon:
I'm sure Alf has the key to this puzzle. But I wonder why the .470's standard bullet weight was not more like 530 grains to give an SD equivalent to the 500-grain .458.

Because the standard bullet weight in the .450 bores was always 480 grains, not 500. The 500 grain started with the .458 Win, which was one of the problems with that cartridge.

For greater SD, the ideal would be the .476 Westley Richards - a 520 grain .476" bullet over 75 grains Cordite.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

I see you guys are still "twisting" yourselves over here.
--------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by BigB:
I have used a 470 NE on elephant bulls twice. One of the times I did have a 470 NE TBSH solid rivet a bit on the front shoulder of a bull elephant.

Twist too slow, bullet tipped inside the animal.

500grains,

What is the twist on a Merkel? I never knew enough about twist to check on it.

BigB

BB, I believe you will find it is 1:20. But you can measure it yourself to be sure. Make a mark on a cleaning rod then put a patch on the rod so that it is tight with the bore. Move the rod through the barrel until the mark makes one full turn on the rod. Measure how many inches of barrel the rod travelled to achieve that turn.

Well I have shot 18 buffalo (water and cape), 3 scrub bulls and 2 elephant with Woodleigh bullets and have never had anything to complain about.

The fact is they are TESTED on water buffalos extensively to see how they perform on game. And not like the little trips some bullet makers make to Africa to shoot two or three cape buffalo and see if they fall over.

There will always be a "wonderful", "new", "gee-whizz", "flat", "pointed", "cup" - whatever, new on the market the purports to be the next best thing since cordite was invented.

Otherwise no one will trade in the old stuff that has worked for a hundred years to buy the new crap.

***

As for the .470, it seems to work, but if you compare a 480 gr/500 gr bullet in a .450 and increase the calibre size, of course the SD will decrease.

quote:

Originally posted by BigB:
I have used a 470 NE on elephant bulls twice. One of the times I did have a 470 NE TBSH solid rivet a bit on the front shoulder of a bull elephant.

In both cases the elephant was taken.

I have no idea what cased the bullet to rivet. The TBSH does have a flat tip.

On buffalo I never recovered a bullet using the 470 so I can make no comments other than the buffalo died.

My safari experience is somewhat limited (2 ele, 4 buff) but it appears to me the 470 NE works just fine.

By the way I no longer have the 470, I think I realized I am just bolt action trash and bought a 404. I hope it works as well as the 470.

BigB

............And I have BigB's 470NE double and it is a fine shooting double rifle!

Thanks BigB!

Surestrike,

I have found limited penetration on head shots that hit a heavy section of skull or the spine. Maybe the bullet or maybe the velocity (~2100 fps as I recall). Who knows.

If the flat point solids give the great penetrations as others have stated, bring them on! It is probably just what is needed for the 470. And one doesn't have to worry about potential feeding problems!

As soon as I get off my butt, I'm going to try to regulate the NF FP's at 2200 fps. If it works, it should more closely realize the potential of the 470, IMO.

/

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:

The distance it takes for an ogived non deforming bullet to tumble in target stands in a direct relationship to the ratio of the distance between tip and CG of the bullet and it's Transverse moment of inertia. This is an unchallenged ballistics fact.

Perhaps true, but I am still getting 55 inches of penetration through ele skulls with a 505 Gibbs using 600 grain Woodleighs, which are the point-style round nose as opposed to the blunt round nose. Maybe the penetration would be even deeper if the bullet were redesigned to have a more blunt round nose, and even deeper still if redesigned as a frusto-conical projectile.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
The distance it takes for an ogived non deforming bullet to tumble in target stands in a direct relationship to the ratio of the distance between tip and CG of the bullet and it's Transverse moment of inertia. This is an unchallenged ballistics fact.

The amount of phycho-babble spewed by Alf in a single day is directly proportional to the ratio of time left in today to the time to the next bottle of gin and inversely proportional to the number of folks willing to listen to such mutterings.

Far more, the product of a (nearly) humorous and (always) demented mind than anything associated with reality or mathamatical expression of the laws of physics.

Vapo...you mean analysis paralysis? LMAO!!

Grab the 470 and go hunt...has worked for 100 years and will continue to work.

quote:

Originally posted by JMJ888:
Vapo...you mean analysis paralysis? LMAO!!

I guess you said it more clearly than I did......and with fewer sylables.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
The distance it takes for an ogived non deforming bullet to tumble in target stands in a direct relationship to the ratio of the distance between tip and CG of the bullet and it's Transverse moment of inertia. This is an unchallenged ballistics fact.

The amount of phycho-babble spewed by Alf in a single day is directly proportional to the ratio of time left in today to the time to the next bottle of gin and inversely proportional to the number of folks willing to listen to such mutterings.

Far more, the product of a (nearly) humorous and (always) demented mind than anything associated with reality or mathamatical expression of the laws of physics.

quote:

Vapo...you mean analysis paralysis? LMAO!!

Grab the 470 and go hunt...has worked for 100 years and will continue to work.

The post ALF just posted, may not be of interest to us, and may sound like physcho-Babble, or the paralysis, of analysis, However, the same science is used in the proper design of bullets at the maker's.

Science the makers do , we don't have to know it, or undersand the concept, so we don't care! In this case however, the bullets in question were not well designed, and ALF was simply telling us why they didn't work properly. What, pray tell, is wrong with that? ,

Anything that flies, has it's stabilization effected greatly by the placement of the Center of Gravity (C.G.) of the missle. In short, that is what ALF was saying, the shape of the bullet placed the CG too far back heavily effecting the bullet's stability, nothing more!

Still, it is understandable that we may not be interested in the WHY, just that the bullet doesn't work well, so we use another that works better. Like most hunters we tend to work in the KISS (Keep It Simple STUPID) principle, and spoof off any real information that we dont use ourselves! There's nothing wrong with the learning of new information though!

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:

The distance it takes for an ogived non deforming bullet to tumble in target stands in a direct relationship to the ratio of the distance between tip and CG of the bullet and it's Transverse moment of inertia. This is an unchallenged ballistics fact.

Perhaps true, but I am still getting 55 inches of penetration through ele skulls with a 505 Gibbs using 600 grain Woodleighs, which are the point-style round nose as opposed to the blunt round nose. Maybe the penetration would be even deeper if the bullet were redesigned to have a more blunt round nose, and even deeper still if redesigned as a frusto-conical projectile.

I have observed similar results as 500grains when using the 550 grain Woodleigh solid out of a Lott at 2,150fps. Perhaps there is something to using heavy for caliber solid bullets with a high sectional density.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:

Wink:

You are correct regarding form factor and external ( aerodynamic) ballistics however aerodynamic ballistics theory and practice is perpetuated when the projectile impacts a dense viscous target ( though many of the factors contributing to the problem are now hugely amplified)

Form factor is important in the calculation of projectile geometry and ultimately geometry and angle of attack are are the only major predictors in, in- target stability of non deforming ogived projectiles.

Alf, I am definitely one of the simple (read stupid) consumers of scientific theory, especially when it confuses rather than clarifies. So let me ask this: form factor can be calculated for external ballistics. It can also be calculated for terminal ballistics. My question is, "How can the two be the same?" In other words a good external ballistic coefficient is probably a lousy terminal ballistics bullet. True? I am lost when you say it is the same theory (theory and practice are perpetuated), rather than the same empirical methodology, being applied.

Just curious, any of you guys ever measure/calculate the CG of a bullet design? What defines optimum?I'm sure this has been done ages ago for spin stabilized artillery rounds. I'd like some pointers to some good papers on this as I'm considering the design of a new .50 BMG 1000 yrd Bullet.-Rob

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
Perhaps true, but I am still getting 55 inches of penetration through ele skulls with a 505 Gibbs using 600 grain Woodleighs, which are the point-style round nose as opposed to the blunt round nose. Maybe the penetration would be even deeper if the bullet were redesigned to have a more blunt round nose,

Bent,
Sorry, but a valid issue has been raised here, and this is going to be a twist question

Dan,
Since you are KNOWINGLY using a bullet that is longer than the 505 gibbs is specified for (525gr bullet, not 600, is the CIP drawing) what twist is that 505 barrel, and would twist have improved your penetration, as we all know, super long for caliber bullets REQUIRE over twist barrels.

So,

1: what was the twist of that 505 gibbs that you are shooting 600gr bullets for 55inches of penetraion in ?

2: do you feel TWIST would have made more of a difference in penetation than bullet construction (as you avoided mentioning twist, I am wondering of you are relgating twist to a trivial issue) ?

3: If you feel that twist would have markedly improved performance, when do you plan on, and who do you plan on using to, replace that barrel with a faster twist?

Thanks in advance.
Sorry bent, these are RELEVANT questions to the topic.

jeffe

You guys are making me afraid to use my old John Wilkes .470 anymore. Between weak steel and poor penetration I must be due to get walked on. Scary!

/

Even though many AR readers may not always agree with Alf's opinions, my feeling is that his open attitude to do research is admirable. If we never question anything we cannot advance. We can only learn by that as intelligent questioning brings better explanations to the surface. To run Alf down is uncalled for in my opinion.

Alf keep up the good work.

Chris

quote:

Originally posted by truvelloshooter:
Even though many AR readers may not always agree with Alf's opinions, my feeling is that his open attitude to do research is admirable. If we never question anything we cannot advance. We can only learn by that as intelligent questioning brings better explanations to the surface. To run Alf down is uncalled for in my opinion.

Alf keep up the good work.

Chris

It may be good work, in there somewhere, but there is so much extranneous mumbo jumbo it is hard to tell. Throwing out stuff like the Navier-Stokes equations for the momentum of fluid flows doesn't really bring anything to the table.