Whitworth

NOSE PROFILE!!!!!

This does not surprise me in the least. I will state now, I am not a big bore handgunner, but some years ago playing with both 45 Colt and 454 Casull and Cast Performance or TrueShot bullets I would get great penetration with these running the same velocities you talk about, 1300-1400 fps. I also did a lot of work with 45/70 in the Guide Guns and experienced the same thing. That flat meplat is everything when it comes to straight and deep penetration. Another very big factor in my tests was the old tried and true (supposedly) nose profile of the Woodleigh FMJ gave the least penetration of any solid or FMJ that I have ever tested. I have soft points that expand that have given deeper penetration than the Woodleigh FMJs!!!!

So the answer to your question is two fold--the Flat Meplat for solids, or good heavy hard cast bullets is far superior to any round nose design--two is that the Woodleigh FMJ nose profile is the worst of designs!

That would be my opinion based on my experiences and the work I have done to date.

Michael

Yes indeed, nose profile is everything! Here is a photo of the bullet that I use in my .475 and it was designed by AR's very own bfrshooter. The meplat is 81% of the diameter, I believe. It penetrates VERY well.

Whitworth
Great looking round! Weight of bullet?

81% of diameter sounds about right for those big handguns. My heavy bullet for the 50 B&M is 70% of diameter--some of the others down as low as 62% of diameter. I have to feed these through bolt guns, and I would be concerned that any more meplat would cause issues with reliability and feeding, with the meplat catching on the bottom of the feed ramp. You don't have that issue to contend with in your 475.

Looks good to me, however I shot one of those once, made it to the 4th round and said no more! I don't mind any rifle, but the heavy handguns begin to shake me up a bit! I will leave that to you thank you very much! Think about your 475 in a tiny little 6 lb rifle with a 16 inch barrel? Now you talking!

Michael

Michael, the bullet weighs 420 grains and I push right to about 1,350 fps. Yes, it kills on both ends! I realize that there is the feeding concern with rifles, so generally you can't run such a big meplat -- unfortunately!

I just ordered a CZ in 375 for this same reason, are you doing it yourself or using someone (if so whom?)

quote:

Originally posted by chuck375:
Hi Ganyana, I'm currently converting my CZ Safari Classic in 375 H&H to 470 Capstick (holds six cartridges 500g A-Frame or GS solid at 2400 fps), should be done by December. What's been your experience with the 470 NE on elephant and buff?

Chuck

michael458,
Yes, thanks for the extensive report. The choir are all singing the same song here: "Battle Hymn of the FN"

For several years I have been shooting into the Iron WaterBoard Buffalo (IWBB) that has been perfected to elephant calibration.

Very soon after I started, I learned that Woodleigh RN FMJ and the old Barnes RN brass solids would only go half as far as the FN's before veering out the sides and damaging ribs of the IWBB. I got tired of replacing the 12-guage plated steel angle iron ribs (brackets) attached to the 9 feet of stainless steel square tube frame.

Round nose solids are a waste of time and money in the IWBB, not allowed! FN's stay straight, RN's do not!

My medium is 10 compartments each being composed of 8" of water in a plastic container, and two plywood boards of 15/32" thickness (nominal "half-inch" plywood).
About 1" of wood, 8" of water and 1" of plastic and air: 10" compartments times 10, and a final four inches of wood or steel that I have yet to reach.

Excellent penetration for an FN solid in this medium totals about 62"-64" on average.

The .395/330gr Brass FN at 2800 fps has beat this, making it to 80" and staying straight on until a yawing smack on the 8th wood partition backing the 8th compartment, actually punching a hole through both boards but bouncing back off the 9th water bucket.

The GSC copper FN .395/340-grain FN at 2700 only marked the first board at the back of the 7th compartment, but it did so perfectly nose on and with its meplat enlarged quite a bit, still FN. Score would be 69.5" for that one.

I have tested .475/500gr copper FN's (North Fork and GSC) at 2100 fps, 2300 fps, and 2500 fps. All do the same depth, the faster ones just do more damage on the "front end" as you say.

I dispute your claim that there is a window like 2000 to 2200 fps where penetration will be better with the same bullet.
Yours may be media dependent if you have observed that. In the IWBB and real game, there is no such window.

I also have observed that sectional density of .305 is a measurably better penetrator than .274, as I have seen with FN copper .375-caliber bullets (GSC) in 1:12" twist barrels.
The 270-grainers at 2700 or 2900 never go as far as the 300-grainers at 2500 or 2700 fps, same nose shape for all.

My best game penetrators from field experience on cape buffalo and bison have been:

GSC FN .416/380gr at 2500 fps in a 1:14" twist
GSC FN .510/570gr at 2400 fps in a 1:10" twist

The latter passed through eight feet of bison.

Rip: what solid would you suggest for my 416 Rigby? It's one of the older RSMs but it's been reworked by Penrod. jorge

Jorge,
That is easy!
GSC .416/380-grain FN.
Perfect in your 1:14" Ruger barrel, same as it was in mine. And believe it or not 0.140 MOA for 3-shots.

Just load them up with 105.0 grains of H4831 Extreme long or short cut and see if you don't get right at 2500 fps.

Your latest load development will take three shots.

Thanks RIP. Where can I buy them? (GSC?) jorge

Jorge,
I bought all of them that Neal Shirley had in stock at one time. If I have to sell you some of them, O.K., but only for you.

Apparently Neal Shirley's Custom Brass and Bullets does not have his ducks in a row on import permits at present, however.

and furthermore , I do hope you will try this, as somebody must keep these ultimate .416 FN's coming into the country:

Go to:

http://www.gscustom.co.za

Then select dealers from the top of the home page:

http://www.gsgroup.co.za/11dealers.html

Then select USA dealer Northern Lights Trading Company (Palmer, Alaska):

http://www.gsgroup.co.za/NLTC.html

You might contact Gerard's daughter Gina from their web site to facilitate, as she is very helpful and keeps Gerard on call as consultant.

I have read that YukonDelta, a member here who posts frquently on the African Hunting board is a GS Custom rep in the US.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
I have read that YukonDelta, a member here who posts frquently on the African Hunting board is a GS Custom rep in the US.

JPK

Yep, Thanks.
He is Northern Lights Trading Company, at the link in my post above. Seems to have his ducks in a row.

RIP
Excellent work, interesting box you have there.
We are shooting different medium, but for the most part getting the same results, with the exception of the velocity window in which you dispute. Dispute all you want, I just report the facts. The sentence above you state that the .475/500s from 2100 to 2500 penetrate the same depth. Not much to dispute as I see it. At any rate, the small amount of difference between 2100 and 2450 that I tested was hardly more than a footnote.

With both bullets being 100% the same nose profile-then of course sectional density would take over at that point. Just as a .458 500 gr Barnes Solid FN will penetrate deeper than a
.458 450 gr Barnes Solid FN.

If two bullets do not have the same nose profile-example Woodleigh FMJ RN vs GS or Barnes FN--then I am not sure that Sectional Density could overcome the nose profile for depth of penetration-I doubt it!

I have shot plenty of "real" game with "Real" solids. I am not one of the High Velocity Gang until I start playing with small bores under 40 caliber. I like my fighting rifles like I like my fighting handguns-big and slow, if one considers 2100-2250 fps slow. At least compared to velocities you mention. I have found that anywhere between 2100-2350 fps have served me well with bores 458 caliber and over, most of the time falling within that 2250 fps range! With proper bullets to do the job at hand I have found no need for more noise, blast, and recovery time. I don't buy into "knockout" formulas, or any formula that is velocity dependent. Energy is useless in my book too. Bullets do the work in my world. Deep and straight line penetration is of paramount importance for elephant, buffalo, and hippo with solids. Destroy tissue, reach vitals, and crunch bone coming and going. With a good proper nose profile 2100-2250 fps will do all of this every time.

In addition I want to add that the high/low velocity issue may also be caliber dependent too. I have no tests with 458 caliber or higher with bullets traveling 2500 fps or more to compare (not sure I want any data like that). I was disappointed with a 510 Wells and my modified Barnes FN 550 gr bullet and vowed at some point to slow this down to 2100 fps to see if penetration was better, but since this rifle weighs in at 11 lbs-has a long 24 inch tube on it and I will never take it to the field that has been put on a back burner--way back.

To me by far the most important part of the tests and work I have done is to establish (for me) the fact that nose profile is everything. Everything else follows and is of little import when compared.
Michael

Michael -- PM sent.......

quote:

With both bullets being 100% the same nose profile-then of course sectional density would take over at that point. Just as a .458 500 gr Barnes Solid FN will penetrate deeper than a
.458 450 gr Barnes Solid FN.

Only if velocity were equal! If the velocity of the two were different so the two produced the same energy at impact, I wonder if the sectional density would make a difference.

JPK

michael458,
Thanks.
Yes it is useless to even consider the RN vs the FN. Apples to oranges. RN's won't stay straight so you cannot even begin to compare one to a proper truncated cone FN.

Resistance goes up exponentially with velocity.
Diminishing additional returns for higher velocity increments, but not lesser total penetration ... again only applies to an FN solid that will stay straight.

The lighter bullet with greater energy just bleeds off that excess velocity/energy in the early stages of penetration, because resistance is exponentially higher with velocity increase. Higher SD (within limits of stability) and same nondeforming FN nose will go farther. Higher velocity cannot make up for SD deficit in the real world game or the IWBB.

Greater momentum with a lighter bullet is hard to obtain in real life, and the higher velocity also will expand the nose some, more for copper than brass.

It is a no-win situation trying to make up for lack of bullet weight with extra velocity in the real world situation of rifle solids.

I consider useful velocities in big game rifles to be between 2000 fps and 2800 fps at impact, whatever you can handle, and also depending on bullet material of FN and the range to target, and "the target situation." Either too little or too much may be for naught, for more many reasons.

Just singing to the choir. Forget RN's. FN's only for solids.

O.K., the FN versus RN debate is long past settled.

Brass versus copper is not settled, and never will be, because "it depends."
Depends on the firearm and the cartridge case limitations.

It is possible to beat a copper FN with a brass FN when that brass FN is an S&H .395-caliber/330-grain (very near 0.300 SD) and goes at up to 2800 fps in the Iron WaterBoard Buffalo.

The .395/340-grain copper FN at 2700 fps lost in that contest, but still showed more than enough penetration as noted above.

80" versus 69.5" in the IWBB.

The brass nose expanded less.
They both expand some at such high velocity.
"Everything is relative."

JPK

Correct-since that part of my statement concerned only sectional density, I would assume that the velocity and bullet contruction, and nose profile and all other factors being equal.

RIP

Thank you, RN vs FN has been well covered and should be understood by all in the know! I too cannot get RN to stay in my box.

I would like to ask you something concerning your statement

"Resistance goes up exponentially with velocity" "Diminishing additional returns for Higer velcoity increments, but not lesser total penetration"

Of course our conversation is concerning "Solids" FN Solids to be precise. I would take the statement as stated, as velocity increases so does resistance (therefore hitting the target hard up front, causing great trauma for the first part of penetration) I agree with that 100%--no dispute! This is exactly the results I obtained with my tests.

Now the part I don't understand about your statement is the Diminishing additional returns.
What diminishing returns are we talking about? We are still on the conversation about FN Solids, straight line penetration is the topic, and returns have to be depth of penetration, therefore I am lead to believe by your statement that higher velocity at some point (whatever that may be) you get diminishing returns, meaning penetration, or more precise less penetration. But you state "not lesser penetration" so I am lost on this, what other "returns" or benefits, or properties can one expect from our FN Solids. The two benefits, returns, or properties have to be Penetration (most important) and the fact that higher velocity hits so hard up front causing great trauma and damage. What other returns are diminished by higher velocity? Sorry just a little lost here with the statement that seems to agree with mine.

The rest of that particular reply I agree with wholeheartedly! It seems we have little to dispute, and seems that for the most part you agree?

I too consider useful velocities on big game 2000--2400 or so, I have no big bores capable of more than 2400 fps at impact so I can't speak with authority above those velocities considering FN Solids. Big bore being at least 416 or better. I have some 338s and 358s that are capable of shooting small solids at high velocity, but don't consider those calibers suitable for work with the heavies.

The brass vs copper would only be an issue at high velocity impacts that you are talking about, 2700-2800 fps. Higher velocity causing the copper to expand (even though it is solid) and giving less penetration--or at least I think that is what you are saying. That is very easy to see, brass is harder-less expansion-deeper penetration. Of course for smaller animals where you wanted to transfer great amounts of trauma and damage this high velocity and upset of bullet can be a great benefit, however penetraion is less, and if heavy bone matter is hit it could upset the line of travel by this deformation on a larger animal. I think with the solids you are dealing with it is still better to lower that velocity some (for heavies-buffalo and such) to 2400 fps or so, have less deformation of the bullet. Smaller critters, have at it. Large and heavy, maybe consider slowing down a bit?

My opinion, I am sure everyone has one and it is worth what you paid for it!

However, like it or not, it seems you have little to dispute with me, by your own statements?

Enjoy--very good stuff here, and anyone looking in can learn a lot I think, eh?
Michael

Hi Michael,
The FASTER bullet loses some velocity in target during initial travel of Y distance. It then has the same velocity as the SLOWER bullet has at entry of target.

The SLOWER bullet travels Z distance in target before coming to a stop.

The FASTER bullet will have traveled X = Z+Y distance in the uniform medium by the time it stops.

It does not take much distance to bleed off the higher velocity of the faster bullet, so Y will be much smaller than Z, but the sum of Y+Z is greater than Z.

Y is not zero nor a negative value.

The distance Y is smaller than the initial compartment depth in my IWBB, for bullets of 2100 fps versus 2500 fps, or 2500 fps versus 2700 fps, all else being equal with the two bullets, besides velocity, and the FN noses do not deform.

RIP

OK OK OK---you have X Y Z'ed me until even a small handfull of Excedrins won't solve my issues! I am as we speak looking for stronger drugs! How in the world could I dispute that, I can't even sort it out proper! And NO I do not want any more explaination of it please!

Let's suffice to say job well done RIP-whatever it is I think it is excellent work, thank you!

As to your last words, I did not say your FN bullets deformed--You Did. Look at your reply 26 August 22:09. At the bottom-"The brass nose expanded less-They both expand some at such high velocity."

Have a good one, and thanks. I am quite sure you are having a great time!

Michael

Yes that is why the brass bullet won that contest. It was not visibly expanded, only a few thou detectable by noting the bullet shortened by a few more thou. However that was the fastest bullet, and it penetrated more. Even though the copper one weighed 10 grains more to start with and was about 100 fps slower, it was visibly bulged and widened at the nose: More drag.

Smacking water at 2700 fps is what bulged that copper FN.

Smacking water at 2800 fps did not visibly bulge the brass FN.

Water is really "hard" at high velocity, soft at low velocity. At low velocity, bullets just coast in water. At high velocity, the bullet gets the brakes set hard by water, not wood.

Wood is constant resistance at all velocities, doing little to slow down a fast bullet, but stopping a slow bullet a lot faster than water will.

The first 5 compartments of the IWBB smack hard with water on the fast bullet. The last 5 compartments will quickly stop the slow bullets as the water resistance eases up at lower speeds, and the boards act as witness to keyholing.

True softpoint expanding bullets are not even apples or oranges. They are bananas! I get a headache when I try to think about them in regards to velocity and penetration. A splitting headache!

Not all brass bullets are created equal- Have asked Nickudu to post pics of a PMP mono from a .375 that broke in half over an ele's sternum.

Looking forward to seeing the photo. What did the break look like?

I suspect PMP does not use the same alloy as Macifej did on his brass FN.

Also is the PMP a truncated cone FN? Hard to tell from those photos.

It was possibly going sideways when it fractured along the cannelure?

Are PMP brass solids impact extruded and hammered into shape like Barnes does theirs, or precision machined from unstressed brass like the S&H?

To correct the IWBB to "elephant calibration," one must subtract 1" per compartment traversed, for that 1" of air and flimsy plastic sidewalls of the waterbaskets.

Conversion of
Iron WaterBoard Buffalo Inches
to
Elephant Inches:

.395/330gr S&H Brass FN @ 2800 fps = 80.0" - 8.0" = 72.0" of elephant

.395/340gr GSC Copper FN @ 2700 fps = 69.5" - 7.0" = 62.5" of elephant.

Wondering if that "fracture" of the PMP bullet across the groove is a fluke or if it's happened more than once??

Does Barnes machine their multi-cannelures with an array of Dremel cutting wheels, after the main lump of bullet is hammered into shape?

4-grooves, 4 cutting wheels.
5-grooves, 5 cutting wheels.

I wonder how PMP does their single cannelure?


Sumbuddy got a picture of one of those unfired PMP solids like the one that broke?
Or at least a verbal description of the hidden nose shape?

What was the caliber AND weight of that broken bullet?
And would it be too much to ask what was muzzle velocity and twist rate of the barrel?

Looks like that was their .375" x 296 Grain "Brass Monolithic Solid"

http://www.pmp.co.za/prod04.htm

Thanks, Jay.
286-grain 18.53-gram is in this factory-loaded .375 H&H "Solid."
A pity this bullet did not prove to be very "solid" if that is the one. I still have not found a picture of the nose.
If it is a round nose, that explains why it was going sideways.

See thats what happens when you make your bullets from recovered .22LR and .38spl brass from the 1930's. -Rob

quote:

Originally posted by Nickudu:

WOW!

Twin flat nose solids with one shot

quote:

Twin flat nose solids with one shot

.395/340-grain GSC copper FN (top)
and
.395/330-grain S&H brass FN (bottom)
before
firing
at
2700 fps and 2800 fps respectively:



The copper GSC was actually longer than the brass S&H before impact, but not after:



Another pic of same two recovered bullets, 1-inch big squares on the graph paper, 0.2 inch little squares:



Feed testing dummies with the two bullets, both feed well in the Dakota 76 "Homemade Rifle" that fired them (.395 Tatanka):

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
Twin flat nose solids with one shot

Would that be considered a double tap?

standard 286grn round nosed standard PMP factory ammo. One in question was fired by Kevin Higgins at a range of 4m.

It is not uncommon for PMP mono's to "fishtail" and loose chunks from the back of the bullet, but this was the first I have seen break up on so soft a bone

Ah ha! Round nose going sideways, as suspected.

A combination of issues it appears. Poor nose design first and foremost, inferior materials, and small diameter.

As a research biologist my peers placed a premium on approaching decision making from field observations in a very unbiased view. That is a difficult trait to develop. I see statements made here that have little or no relation to the facts. For example:

You would think it is law that round nosed steel jacketed solids do not penetrate in a straight line and always tumble while FN solids always penetrate in a straight line and never tumble. That is one statement I would like to challenge as I have before.

A quick calculation shows that I have fired somewhere in excess of 75 round nosed steel jacketed solids into buffalo and 39 into elephants. The buffalo were shot with either the old 300 grain Hornady steel jacketed solid or the 465 Woodleigh 480 grain solid. Most of the 375 bullets (2,550 fps) were side on shots typically into the high heart/lung area. A few were going away shots into a ham aimed for the heart/lung area and a couple of spine shots. It was easy to see the course of these bullets as all the side shots and spine shots exited. I could see no sign of non-straight line penetration or tumbling. The rear end shots either exited the front of the chest or stopped in front of the heart in the sternum depending on how much of the ham was penetrated. The 465 bullets penetrated fully on shots closer than somewhere around 60 yards and were found under the skin on the off side. Again no sign of a divergent penetration path.

The bullets fired into elephant included side, frontal and body shots. All but one, a Sledgehammer solid from a 458 Win, were Woodleigh RN steel jacketed solids they included 500 grain solids from the 470, 480 grain solids from my 465 H&H and 550 grain solids from my 458 Lott. Most were recovered or the bullet path trough the vitals was followed. Again I have never seen anything but straight line penetration even on one 470 bullet that went through the chest cavity of a large bull elephant and broke the off shoulder it was found lying next to another 470 Woodleigh that entered with in 4" of the second shot but just missed the shoulder bone.

I would think hat if RN steel jacketed solids misbehaved with any where near the frequency stated here I would have seen some indication of it by now. I believe that the RN solids tend to veer off course in simulated media such as dry paper, wet paper, water, wood or wood water mixtures. It is obvious to me that such media do not reflect what happens in real flesh and bones as far as straight line penetration and tumbling are concerned. There may be some merit of use of these media to compare penetration ability in game. If you do not see veering off course of steel jacketed RN solids in game but you do in simulated media it puts to suspect the penetration numbers generated from simulated media. If the bullet curves off path then it will penetrate less. Remember 500 grains found that RN steel jacketed solids and FN mono-metal solids (except for RN mono-metal solids penetrated nearly equally in elephant heads.


Awhile back I started a thread where I asked hunters to post experiences with RN steel jacketed solids going off course or tumbling. One reported a bullet tumbling after it broke the spine on a buffalo but it still penetrated an a straight line. Another though one went slightly off course on a side brain shot on an elephant but it did still hit the brain. Those were the only two instances reported. In another thread on Bryan Chick reported that a mono-metal solid went slightly off course on a behind the ear shot on an elephant. https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/...=443108509#443108509

So it is one each for RN steel and FN mono's.

If you have more instances of either type of bullet going off course or tumbling I would like to hear them. Let's try to keep open minds and search for the truth!

465H&H

465 H&H

I beg to differ sir--I deal with nothing but the facts! I also promise that I am "biased" and intend to go to the field with the best bullet that I can muster, and one that I have 100% faith in!

With that said, there is no medium that will represent what a bullet will do when encountering flesh--not even flesh. What we strive to do is to have a medium to test in that is tougher than flesh and that one can get consistent results from to compare one bullet to the other!

You are correct in the point that no media is perfect, and no media is animal flesh. Animal Flesh is not even Animal Flesh--not consistent. My opinion is that wet print, dry print, wood or wood and water mixtures are much tougher than animal flesh. This is why both RIP and myself can tell you that we will get deeper penetration in animal flesh than either media. With solids I get 30-35% more penetration in animal flesh (elephant in particular and cape buffalo in particular) than I do my wet print magazine mix. The wet print/magazine mix I use is more dense and tougher on bullets than animal flesh, even when introducing materials to do our best to upset straight line penetration.

From both RIP and my observations, and test work, in two different mediums we both see any Round Nose design bullet veer off course, some more than others, but they all do it at some point. Most all sometime after 50%-60% of total penetration. Some like the older Barnes RN make it to around 80% of total penetration before going off course. Some like the Woodleighs will start at 50-60% of total penetration and most of the time won't even stay in the box.

Now I don't know about you, but I will state that I want to test in tough material, tougher than the animal I intend to hunt. I want to see if my bullet has any chance of failing. When I go on an elephant hunt I don't go with a bullet that may fail me, if I know that there is that chance. Of course Old Man Murphy is always out there looking for an opportunity, I don't intend to hand it to him on a platter! If a bullet fails on a regular basis in my test work--then it certianly stands a chance of failing in the field! Animal flesh is not consistent-one day there might be just the slightest angle, a bigger bone, a bit thicker muscle, or any number of unforeseen factors that will cause that good old tried and true Round Nose of yours to veer off course. No second place winners here you know? Now if we have a bullet that gives deeper, 100% straight line penetration in tougher test medium--100% of the time--What bullet do you want to use? Seems like a fairly simple matter to me!

You state in your last paragraph that "one went slightly off course on a side brain shot on an elephant, but it still hit the brain"---You have been in the field and you know how many small factors could have effected that last bit of penetration and could have very easy caused that same bullet to veer just a bit more and missed the brain entirely! There is zero doubt in my mind that many many of the misses with brain shot elephants over the last 100 years can be attributed to poor bullet performance, and many of these cases could be traced to bullets going off course before reaching the brain, especially on frontal shots. Once again, ones odds go up tremendously with a good flat meplat bullet for straight line penetration in either medium or animal flesh and bone.

Hey, if someone had told me this same thing 5 years ago I would have looked them in the eye and told them they were full of &%*# in no uncertian terms. I have followed up many a shot on buffalo with RN Barnes Solids, shot 4 elephants with them and I never experienced any issues either, at least none I was aware of! But I am smart enough to recognize that when something better comes along I am going to use it, after I have tested and see the results myself!

Furthermore I have dug around in many a damn critter too, and when you start trying to look at bullets that zip through elephant bodies you have a job on your hands. When a bullet travels several feet through an elephant I can't imagine how you can possibly track it exactly, as things are fluid, messy, and moving all the time! I can't on any of the elephants I tried to autopsy. Head shots are tough to autopsy too, lot's of cutting and sawing and making a general mess!

Neither RIP nor I ever state anywhere that RN bullets don't kill elephants and buffalo. Again the media is tougher than flesh and bone, one cannot test and get positive results in something that is LESS than what you intend to use the bullet for! You must strive to cover your tail--so test in something tough, something that will put the bullet to the test. Now you can't be an idiot and use STEEL for a test-that has zero relationship, anymore than shooting through 12 inch oak trees, I see little relationship in that. I don't even like ballistic gell, or dry paper--I like for some fluid to be in the mix, along with material that is going to stress the bullet--wet print/magazine does that. RIP likes his material and that is fine-it is tough with the wood boards added, and the water adds fluid--he gets nearly the same results as I get. He just likes too much velocity is all and I intend to wear him down on that in a few years.

What has the best chance of straight line penetration? FN Solids by far--RN Solids far behind. Make mine with a nice flat meplat.

And as far as I am concerned "It is the Law" Flat Nose solids penetrate deeper, and give straight line penetration when put under stress--A round nose solid does not do this!

So use what you will-I would not doubt that before too many years pass that RN Solids are going to go the way of the dinosaur, the way of 8 track tapes, and the way of VHS Movies--they might become extinct, even a hard head like me made the change to FN Solids. What shames me so bad is that the "handgunners" have been on to this for years, while we big bore riflemen lag behind! Shame on us!

Once again let me state for the record--I am biased with Extreme Prejudice--I will not go to the field knowing I have an inferior product-why in the world would one do that?