465H&H,

I had one North Fork flat nose solid veer slightly from straigt line pneteration. The bullet was an isurance shot, iirc, into the front center of the head of an elephant that was killed with a prior frontal brain shot. The bullet was found outside the rib cage after about 54" of travel. I dropped to a squat for the shot to give it center line penetration.

The nose had a divot on one side. The bullet seemed to track straight through the head and neck, for about 3' of penetration. I think it got its divot on the spine and began its curved trajectory there. It had deviated a couple of feet by the time it came to rest. It was nose forward when found.

JPK

michael458!

If you look back at my post you will see that I never said that FN solids didn't penetrate deeper than RN steel jacketed solids. I believe there is sufficient evidence that the FN generally penetrates deeper but that they may be equal in elephant heads at least in the results 500 grains reported. But it begs the question of how much penetration is enough. If any bullet has enough penetration to pierce the vitals with enough velocity to scramble the vitals, that is sufficient IMO.


My point is that RN steel jacketed bullets perform miserably in simulated media. But we do not see that same miserable performance in buffalo or elephants. Consequently, we must question whether such media truly are reflective of what happens in game. With JPK's post above we now have two cases of FN solids veering of course to one for RN solids. Does that mean that FN solids are more likely to veer than RN? Of course not. My point was and is, why don't we see veering on a grand scale with RN solids in game like we see in test media? Can you explain why in the over 100 RN solids that I have shot into elephants and buffalo, I have not seen any sign of veering? That is a legitimate question to any one interested in the truth.

You made the following statement;
"What has the best chance of straight line penetration? FN Solids by far--RN Solids far behind.

What evedence do you have that this is true in elephant or buffalo?

I ask this question in all due respect because I truly want to know the truth.


465H&H

465

First--How much penetration is enough? Good question. Most any solid of reasonable sectional density and velocity will have enough penetration to reach the brain of an elephant. Bell proved that many times. Even with poor solids or fmjs of his time. I certianly have never done it, but a good 30 caliber 220 gr Barnes Solid I have no doubt will reach the brain of any elephant alive if placed proper. That don't mean it is the best tool to use however.

How much is enough? In some of my tests most of the big bore round nose bullets will travel 40-48 inches in my medium, a good old Barnes RN is good to go for 70-80% of that straight, when it starts to slow down it loses stability and starts to veer. Split the difference, say 44 inches, 80% straight means 35 inches dead straight--35% more penetration in animal flesh and bone, now this will travel through 4.5 feet of animal straight. 4.5 feet of animal is a long way, so even most round nose bullets can do so without starting to veer before reaching vitals. I would not trust a Woodleigh Profile, but have many times trusted the Barnes RN.

As stated before I have been on site many times for elephant slaughters and damn if I see any 100% positive way to track a bullet for it's entire travel thru that mess??? I did track one of mine in November from entrance to exit and it tracked straight as best I could tell 7 feet. Another tracked straight broadside through the heart-entrance and exit again straight as best I could tell, and yet another tracked straight through the skull from the front and exited the rear of the brain, straight as best I could tell! Now that is 3 more .500 caliber, and yes I mean .500 caliber, not .510 caliber--510 gr Flat Nose Solids to add to the list that did not veer off course, at least "Best as I could Tell". In all the shooting I have done in the field with elephant and buffalo I never ever got that sort of penetration with any round nose solids of even greater sectional density.

Some of our first prototype bullets in .500 diameter were in fact Woodleigh profile round nose solids. First hunt with my 50 was a test hunt in which I shot 13 animals in 3 days, from impala to giraffe and eland. I was testing mostly expanding bullets, but backed up everything with these solids, just like hunting buff! I can tell you for sure that every single one of those round nose solids would veer off course and exit at odd places on the animals. One round nose solid entered a eland at an angle from the rear and exited the top of the back and hit a tree 15 feet above the eland!
I count 6 more round nose solids that did not track straight on that hunt alone IN ANIMAL FLESH AND BONE--entrance and exits not even close to straight. I had not tested these bullets before leaving, except for accuracy and they all landed in a hole at 50 and 100 yds. I did not do penetration tests, why would I, that nose profile has been around a 100 years? Now let's add and subtract a few. Don't worry, I did not want to believe it either, hell I had a brand new .500 diameter rifle in the field--It could not possibly have an issue! You can bet your tail I got back and started work and completely redesigned things until I finally discovered the secret words "Flat Nose"!

As stated, the Woodleigh profile is horrendous-I am sorry Woodleigh as I love Woodleigh bullets my shelves are full of them, mostly those lovely big round nose "SOFT POINTS". The Barnes RN solids would hold on much longer before veering, and this is why you never noticed in animals I think. But at some point it goes east or west too. Round nose solids DO NOT hit as hard as the flat meplats--I noticed this on buffalo with noticeable reactions when hit. All the advantages belong to the FLAT NOSE BULLET---and none to the Round Nose.



465, we need no longer look for the truth-the truth is out there, we must just accept it!
Thanks
And Good Night
Michael

michael458,

I assume that the bullets you made were mono-metal bullets with a Woodleigh profile. Please correct me if I am wrong. If they were of standard weight then they would have been much longer than a steel jacketed lead core solid. Possibly that was the problem Bullets too long for your twist rate causing stability problems. We know that some mono-metal FN solids are too long for standard twist rates and faster twist rates are recommended for them or lighter weight bullets. Could that have been the problem? I famous elephant control officer Clem Coetzee from Zimbabwe once told me that the Barnes and A square RN mono-metal solids sometimes did weird things and went off course but the Winchester steel jacketed factory solids always went straight. Although they had other problems well known to us all. My experience has been with lead core steel jacketed solids. In no way can you compare them to RN mono-metal solids. A completely different fish. Have you tried any lead core steel jacketed solids? I suspect not or your opinion would probably be different.

Also I can recite you dozens of cases where as you saw, it appeared that there was only straight line penetration with RN steel jacketed lead core solids. As an example I placed a 550 grain Woodleigh between the shoulder blades of an elephant lying on it's side back to me. The bullet went through the spine, down through the chest and was found under the skin on the brisket. At least six feet of penetration. It was straight line penetration as best as we could tell.

465H&H

As 465H&H knows, I am a flat nose devotee. So when I praise Woodleighs it means more than a little. 465H&H has cited one case where I was able to observe the track of a 500gr .458" Woodleigh that tumbled, but it tracked straight. I've seen other evidence of tumbling as well, like flattened tails or bent bullets or split tails. But every Woodleigh that I've dug for was where it should have been with straight line penetration.

I believe the hemisherical round nose, like the .458" Woodleighs track straight, but have a strong tendency to tumble when they have decelerated significantly to some pretty slow speed or spin.

Be aware, NOT EVERY WOODLEIGH HAS THE SAME NOSE PROFILE!!! Take a Woodleigh for a 450NE, 458wm, Lott and compare to a Woodleigh for the 470NE and you will see great difference. Woodleigh's nose profile mirrors the historical profile for the older cartridges. The 480ge for the 450NE is hemisherical, same as the old rounds, the 458wm, Lott bullets are hemisherical, the 470 bullets have a significantly more pointy profile, just like the originals.

The poorest penetration in elephant heads or bodies, or buff bodies observed by 500 Grains was produced by the Barnes old round nose design. Significantly less penetration than the Woodleighs from the same rifle loaded to the same velocity, or compared to the mono flat noses too.

As 465H&H mentions, 500 Grains found equal weight mono flat noses and round nose steel jacketed bullets at the same velocities to penetrate within about 10% of each other, with the flat noses the greater penetration on average. My own test, which have been in elephants, have pitted the 450gr North Fork flat nose at ~2200fps against the 500gr Woodleigh at 2145fps. The flat noses out penetrate the round noses by ~30% in my tests. The math reveals that the 450ge flat noses are producing less ME than the 500's, but the penetration is still significantly greater. I think the flat noses love velocity, in fact, my test point to velocity being a critical element to penetration, outweighing SD or ME.

Also, I find tracking bullets in buff or elephants to be pretty simple. A take down cleaning rod makes an excellent probe to confirm straight line penetraion in elephant heads. .458" bullets leave a distinct and easy to follow permanant wound channel is muscle. Ele guts reveal bruising from the passage of the bullet and while it can get messy, and it is easy to loose bullets in the guts, it isn't too bad because everything is of huge dimension. I would rather gut an ele than a cottontail because of the easier to work scale issues.

465H&H, here is a story of penetration: Brained an ele with a frontal brainshot, needed to put in an insurance shot and didn't pay too much attention. The ele fell awkwardly revealing the bottom of the chest. I fired hastily, knowing the ele was stone dead. When we approached it was clear that my insurance shot struck the ele in the leg, just below the lower joint. It traveled the length of the leg and then enetered the chest and finally exited the top of the ele between the shoulder blades. Tuskless cow, 450gr NF at 2200fps.

I would hunt with 500gr Woodleighs at 2145fps tomorrow and be 100% confident of more than sufficient performance. I would prefer to hunt with 450gr NF's...

JPK

Baised on shots I have fired, and bullets I have recovered I report the following, using 480gr Woodleigh solid .458 bullets, and North Fork 450 gr Flat Nose in my 450 No2, 400gr .408 Woodleigh Solids in my 450/400 3 1/4" and 286gr Woodleigh Solids in my 9,3x74R in elephants, cape buff and giraffe.

I have brain shot 4 elephants at 6 yards or under, and 2 at 40 yards and over.

All bullets gave more than adequate penetration on body and head shots.

The Woodleigh bullets I recovered from head shots on elephants were always point on, except for one 480gr .458 that had hit the spine after a slightly quarting frontal brain fired from 6 yards above the elephant. This bullet had penetrated the spine behind the head, the base of this bullet had ftattened out and split, but it might have been struck by an axe, does not look like it but it might have been.

One of my body shots, 480gr .458 woodleigh Solid, on a bull elephant, hit low on the shoulder at a quartering away angle. It penetrated through the elephant and went through his trunk, showing no signs of tipping.

The 450gr NFFP have given me deeper penetration than the 480 Woodleigh's.

Like 465H&H, JPK and 500 Grains I have not seen evenence of tipping of the Woodleigh Solids in the animals I have shot.

While it is necessary to have some type of affordable media to test bullets, be they Soft or Solid, none of the medias really are identical to what happens in live animals.

I prefer to use information from the shooting of actual animals.


If the testing media used gives vastly different results than the real animal, then the media is not valid.

To base your choice of bullets, on a flawed artificial media, is bad science IMHO.

465

Yes the RN profile I was using was of course a mono solid, but light for caliber-not long and heavy. Yes, twist rate did not stablize as much as it should. Original twist rates were too fast. Using a 1:12 it did better with the RN bullets-but still veered off. The Flat Nose designs do not. I have used and shot plenty of lead core jacketed solids, but none are available in .500 diameter.

JPK
I get the same tumbling effect in media with the Woodleighs. If I am lucky to find one that stays in the box most of the time it is turned backwards.

Your tests with the 450 North Fork and the Woodleighs are very representative of what I have seen, with the exception of the statement that FN loves velocity--I have not seen that, in fact slighty deeper penetration with lower velocity, but that was a very limited test.

I have yet to have a cleaning rod on me when elephant hunting. I can only assume you guys make a better plan on your elephant hunts than I do, congrats!

NE 450

If you go back-you will see where I agree with you to a point about media. No media duplicates animal flesh and bone. Animal Flesh and bone being what it is does not replicate exactly the same consistency each and every time either! So what test you may have on animal flesh and bone will not be consistent with the next bullet fired. Not all animal flesh is created equal, not on the elephants and buffalo I have shot anyway.

I have shot more elephants with RN Bullets than I have with FN Bullets! Of course my little experience probably cannot possibly compare with the vast majority of experience that is exhibited here, I have only shot a meager 6 elephants. Hardly enough experience to be an expert. But all 6 are deader than old Abe Lincoln! I just happen to think that two of the elephants I shot with the FN bullets are damn sight deader than the others!

I too cannot possibly afford to do all my test work on animals-wish I could what a blast, but the pay is not so good and I have yet to be able to get someone to pay me for that. So you are in a great position to be able to afford to do all your test work on elephants! I on the other hand have to do mine with what I think is the best test medium available where I can shoot many bullets before going on the big hunt. Then I can test on a limited basis on animal flesh and bone in the field.

I can only assume that I must be doing it wrong--actually doing test work before going to the field to hunt animals. I must be doing it wrong, and it must be "Bad Science" to test bullets before going to the field to use them on animals such as elephant. According to your methods you much prefer to do your test work on animals. I am sorry, it just seems to me-novice that I am mind you-that one would prefer to have that knowledge BEFORE going to the field.

I am not here to convince you otherwise, to be perfectly honest NE 450 I don't care what you do nor how you test, nor how you validate your opinions. I am just reporting what I have found to be true. Your "Holy RN" bullets have done fine for the last 100 years-I am just saying there is something better now. Maybe in animal flesh RN bullets turn less than in test medium of any sort, I am yet to be convinced of that, but that is me. But there is little doubt about FN bullets tracking straight, not tumbling, and hitting harder on average than RN bullets. There is no disputing that.

I do take great exception to "flawed artificial media and bad science! I personally think it is grossly unethical to wait until one goes to the field to do test work. Maybe it's just me, but I would rather have some idea of what my bullets are doing before I go to the field with them. I have made that mistake a time or two by just assuming that either because the manufacturer said so-or because this is what we used for 100 years and it should be ok-but never again! I will always make it a point to know what I have in hand before going to the field.

There now, "We can be friends again" with that out of the way. Honestly we can cite back and forth in this thread day in day out, we can argue, dispute, and counter each other day in day out. Some will believe while others will not! Like stated, I have not disputed that RN has not, nor will do the job at hand at least most of the time. I believe in FN technology, it is the greatest thing to come along for those big solids we use for the most serious of matters, in 100 years! Even I lagged behind by a couple of years without taking notice, but not anymore. I have seen the results both in the "Lab" and in the field, there is no turning back now.

I shoot between 150-200 rounds a week of big bore, defined 416 and up. Doing load data, testing bullets, different rifles, replacing scopes, getting ready for hunts, and things like that. Very rare a week goes by with little shooting. In the last two weeks alone I have shot a bit over 800 rounds, I had two rifles to get ready for Africa for a buddy of mine that leaves next week. I have been getting my rifles ready for Alaska where I leave on the 10th. So the last couple of weeks have been hectic. Mixed in with that has been normal load data, test work, POI work, and bullet work. Quite frankly this bickering back and forth about ones favorite bullet is a waste of time, it either does or it don't! To quote ones methods as bad science is a waste of my time and energy, I call'em as I see'em, like it or not!

Right now my range is ready for me, I must go and practice some "Bad Science" thank you very much!

Michael

Michael458,

You misinterpret 450NE No2's views, he is actually a huge flat nose fan. In fact he was the individual who introduced me to the improved performance of the flat nose solids and first encouraged my to try them.

Like me though, 450NE No2's preference for the flat nose solids is founded on their improved penetration performance and not on experience with inadequate performance or failed steel jacketed round nose solids. In other words, on incremental improvement, not salvation from a disaster waiting to happen.

My experience and in game tests point to significant incremental improvement with the flat noses. Others' experience and in game tests point to lesser incremental improvement.

On here at home test mediums, well, they're test mediums and no conclusions based on them can ever be relied upon without repeated confirmation in the real thing. And as you note, even the real thing isn't entirely uniform or repeatable.

Further, wet newsprint has a known history of providing results significantly different for round noses and flat noses that do not mirror actual field result differences in the real thing. The test results do nod to the benefits of the flat noses but infer much greater differences in performance between the two than actual field results reveal.

Likewise for providing significantly different results for higher velocities and lower velocities that do not track actual results. Here the inferences provided by tests in wet newsprint diametrically oppose actual feild results. Especially for round noses.

With regard to the nose shape, there is a lot of evidence that the hemisherical round noses more consistently provide straight line penetration while pointier designs, like the original 470 shape, are not as reliable. On the other hand, I have employed my PH's 470 in some of my dead elephant tests and his pointier Woodleighs were found point forward and provided straight line penetration. Small sample of three or four bullets.

Don't forget that steel jacketed solids to not date to the development of the NE stoppers in the late 19th and early 20th century, but to later dates. Nickel jacketed solids were a precorsor, their performance was a huge incremental improvement over hardened, large bore rifle lead bullets. Steel jackets were then an incremental improvement over the nickel jackets. Flat noses are the next and current incremental improvement....

I don't believe that mono metal solids are an incremental improvement, absent a flat nose. Others' experiences with mono metal round noses point to inferior field performance compared to steel jacketed round nose solids.

Perhaps the next incremental improvement will be founf with the new Hornaday flat nose steel jacketed solids, or a successor with a greater meplat.

JPK

PS: Since elephant recovery involves more than just the PH and client and the two trackers, you don't need to have your cleaning rod with you on tracks, nor your tape measure for measuring penetration. Also, use the patch attachment for the rod when you probe or you will jam the threads irrevesibly with chunks of god knows what.

michael458,

I don't think NE 450 No2, JPK and certainly not me think that the RN steel jacketed bullet is "Holy". They have advantages and disadvantages over FN mono-metal solids. The reverse is also true. None of us have trashed FN mono-metal solids, in fact all three of us are fans. I am a fan not from use but because people that I trust to accurately report what they see in field use such as NE 450 No2, JPK and 500 grains report excellent results.

Many come on here seeking information on what works and doesn't work. It is incumbent on those of us with a lot of field experience to report what we see accurately. When any of us makes a statement it is fair game for others to question that statement and ask for proof. Especially when the statement runs counter to what we have experienced. Expect it to happen again.

Very little if any of what we report here are valid scientific experiments. Our testing procedures do not follow "Scientific Methods". We would be crucified if we tried to publish our reports in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Saying that, you are very correct in saying that it is better and more humane to test in media before going afield to test on animals. The problem arises when we try to relate actions in media to what will happen in animals. When we see differing results, we must then question the relevance of our media to predicting results in animals. Such questioning could lead to a better medium for predicting bullet actions in game.

465H&H

Boys I think there has to be some sort of misunderstanding here. From the start I stated that the test medium was good for testing one bullet compared to another, that is all. I related the pentration of any said bullet tested in the medium to what I was getting in animal flesh--roughly 30%-35% more in animal flesh and bone than in the test medium. I don't think that I ever said that what will happen in the test medium is what you get on animal flesh. If so it was misspoken and not intentional, and I am not going back to read the book I have written in this thread.

My stand on the issue is this "If a bullet fails on a regular basis in any Test Medium--it is just POSSIBLE that a bullet can fail in the Field" I am not saying it will every single time-Just that the POSSIBILITY is out there! Is that simple enough? If a bullet performs perfectly, or as you desire, on a very regular basis--Then it is just POSSIBLE that it will perform well in the field! Not that there are DIRECT relationships between test medium and real live flesh and bone-there are not.

Test medium gives us a consistent-or fairly consistent way to test one bullet against another. If you recall to have comparisons to real world events I used both Barnes Solid FN bullets as a base line in which to base other conclusions upon-I know what these bullets will do in the field-if other bullets perform close to this, well I figure it is a success. If not, then try something else.

JPK

Rules of Procedure! I have been caught with my panties around my ankles a time or two. I strive to not be in that position anymore. Therefore I test in my medium because I have 100s if not 1000s of tests to compare with, both from the wet print/magazine medium and bullets dug out of critters, most expanding bullets, but in the last two years quite a few solids, but only solids that I am going to the field with, and solids that I need base lines on. So I test-test some more-then just a bit more. Then if I have confidence in the test work and the bullet I then take it to the field for final test work on live flesh and bone. End of story!

I see little in your post we have as a disagreement?

As for the cleaning rod on the tracks-of course not, but my PHs don't even own a cleaning rod I don't think? And I want to see you fight your way to the carcass once the locals arrive! That's a few too many machetes, knives and hatchets a little too close to me! Thanks, but not!

465
Again, the relationship to the test medium is the very fact that if it fails in the test medium then it is possible it can fail in the field! If it does not fail in the test medium then I say it is more likely to be successful in the field!

If I test a bullet in my test medium and it consistently fails 90% of the time to obtain the goals I have intended for said bullet--Am I a responsible shooter for ignoring these tests because it was done in a test medium and not on flesh and bone? Or ignore these tests because this is a bullet that has been used for 100 years? I think that I would not be a responsible shooter to ignore failures of said bullet. Bad science or not science at all, regardless of what you call it some things cannot be ignored just because we don't agree with it.

Again, don't misunderstand-I am not relating that my test medium or any other test medium is a duplicate for flesh and bone-I try my best, but think not for a second that is what I am saying. A comparison between test subjects. Then go to the field for results thereof-and my friend a bit more bad news is that you cannot get 100% field results with a 100 bullets fired! It will take many years of "In the Field Results" to draw realistic conclusions from any sort of bullet design, due to at least 1 Million factors that can effect bullet performance in the field with flesh and bone! The test work before hand just gives us a bit of a head start--most of the time!

Hey and By the way, I test for myself, it is mine alone, I could care less about whether you believe it is relevant to anything. It is relevant to what I do, and me alone. If it helps anyone fine if not then fine. But I will state unequivocally that what I have stated here is fact--Flat Nose bullets in MY tests drive straight and true, and deeper than any of the Round Nose Bullets that I have tested in MY TEST MEDIUM and what little field experience I have concerning the Flat Nose bullets alone have bore out that same success in animal flesh and bone.

Now do not twist that to mean that all RN bullets fail, that only FN bullets will work, or anything other than what I just stated. Round and Round-and the sad thing is that we are all so close to agreeing on the same thing it is funny!

Now please let me get back to some "Bad Science"
Have fun and hell lets talk about something else! I have worn this subject out!
Michael

Hey Guys
I have something for us to discuss that I do have questions concerning.

Maybe we should start a new thread on this if you want, but I really am looking for opinions on this.

A solid copper expanding bullet with 6 blades (like a barnes x you can relate) not annealed or heat treated. At certian velocities the blades break off! Good or bad or little difference? Should we start a new thread-if so please let me know. Of course I will go into more detail at that point with full explaination.
Michael

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Hey Guys
I have something for us to discuss that I do have questions concerning.

Maybe we should start a new thread on this if you want, but I really am looking for opinions on this.

A solid copper expanding bullet with 6 blades (like a barnes x you can relate) not annealed or heat treated. At certian velocities the blades break off! Good or bad or little difference? Should we start a new thread-if so please let me know. Of course I will go into more detail at that point with full explaination.
Michael

Start the thread!!

quote:

As for the cleaning rod on the tracks-of course not, but my PHs don't even own a cleaning rod I don't think? And I want to see you fight your way to the carcass once the locals arrive! That's a few too many machetes, knives and hatchets a little too close to me! Thanks, but not!

465
Again, the relationship to the test medium is the very fact that if it fails in the test medium then it is possible it can fail in the field! If it does not fail in the test medium then I say it is more likely to be successful in the field!

If I test a bullet in my test medium and it consistently fails 90% of the time to obtain the goals I have intended for said bullet--Am I a responsible shooter for ignoring these tests because it was done in a test medium and not on flesh and bone? Or ignore these tests because this is a bullet that has been used for 100 years?

I bring my own takedown cleaning rod. I would take one regardless of whether I was going to be testing or digging bullets. And I actually use it during the course of a safari too.

In my experience, locals will patiently wait until photos, bullet digging, skinning and removing tusks are finished. Further, they wait for butchering and meat distribution if the butchering is well handled. But sometime, after the hide and tusks are removed, photos done, etc, it turns into a wild meley. I've heard it is more likely to have issues in Mozambique though.

The collary to believing that solid bullets and loads that "fail" in test mediums are likely to "fail" in hunting situations is believing that bullets and loads that do not "fail" the test are first a capable bullet and or load and second that it will perform similarly in game. While I believe that some useful inferences can be drawn from test, one much be on gaurd for inferences which prove false because of the medium or other features of the test.

A good example of the fallacy which can occur, and on point because of the similar test medium, is the Linebough tests of flat nose cast bullets vs round nose rifle solids. Relying on that test data, and believing that its inferences parrallel real world expected results, inevitably leads to the conclusion that while hunting a cast bullet with a flat nose at relatively very low velocity will out penetrate a round nose solid at much greater velocity. In real game, or at least in elephants where I compared them, it just ain't so.

On soft points, I find the performance of either the Woodleigh, TBBC or the Swift excellent and so reliable that I haven't bothered to look further.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Hey Guys
I have something for us to discuss that I do have questions concerning.

Maybe we should start a new thread on this if you want, but I really am looking for opinions on this.

A solid copper expanding bullet with 6 blades (like a barnes x you can relate) not annealed or heat treated. At certian velocities the blades break off! Good or bad or little difference? Should we start a new thread-if so please let me know. Of course I will go into more detail at that point with full explaination.
Michael

Please do start a thread.
Interesting subject. All seem to be so concerned about the petals not breaking off. But my experience with som 300 grs exp monos in my 416 wby at 3200 f/s tell me some advantages - as enormous penetration for a exp bullet (after petals are broken off it leaves a FN solid). Besides the petals was often recovered on the opposite side skin on even buffalo bulls (while the remaining flat nose shanks excited)meaning that the petals did a lot of damage in "loose flight"..

michael458,

Based on this statement of yours, "It will take many years of "In the Field Results" to draw realistic conclusions from any sort of bullet design, due to at least 1 Million factors that can effect bullet performance in the field with flesh and bone! The test work before hand just gives us a bit of a head start--most of the time!"

Since FN mono-metal bullets are relatively new to the African game fields, how many years will it be before we can draw realistic conclusions on their ability to penetrate and travel in a straight line in buffalo and elephant?

465H&H

No doubt the FN`s work a lot better than ANY roundnose solid be it FMJ or monolithic solids.
Not even worth arguing about..

quote:

Originally posted by buffalo:
No doubt the FN`s work a lot better than ANY roundnose solid be it FMJ or monolithic solids.
Not even worth arguing about..

Amen.

quote:

Originally posted by buffalo:
No doubt the FN`s work a lot better than ANY roundnose solid be it FMJ or monolithic solids.
Not even worth arguing about..

I don't agree with a blanket statement as such, if a monolithic FN solid is too long then penetration goes down the drain, that is also an objective IN THE FIELD finding.

1. FN solids (GS or Northfork) have better penetration on body shots than RN's that's maybe a no brainer, hands down, objective finding in the hunting fields, not wood or paper wet or dry finding.
2. Overall penetration of FN solids better than RN solids on brain shots. I think the jury is still out on this one and a good RN like a Woody might have the edge. There are other variables that come into play, if the shot is taken at 5 yds the specific rate of twist in one's barrel might not be able to stablize the bullet at 5 yds so it might not matter if it's an FN or a RN it's going to be sub-par on penetration.
3. Straight line penetration of FN over RN so far the objective field evidence points to the FN having an advantage, how much? Let's keep shooting brain shots on ele and find out. We need to follow JPK's field work example and come home with some objective field exidence. By the way I'm not bias towards either, I shoot Woody and GS solids out of my 500.

Dirk

quote:

Originally posted by dirklawyer:
I don't agree with a blanket statement as such, if a monolithic FN solid is too long then penetration goes down the drain, that is also an objective IN THE FIELD finding.

1. FN solids (GS or Northfork) have better penetration on body shots than RN's that's maybe a no brainer, hands down, objective finding in the hunting fields, not wood or paper wet or dry finding.
2. Overall penetration of FN solids better than RN solids on brain shots. I think the jury is still out on this one and a good RN like a Woody might have the edge. There are other variables that come into play, if the shot is taken at 5 yds the specific rate of twist in one's barrel might not be able to stablize the bullet at 5 yds so it might not matter if it's an FN or a RN it's going to be sub-par on penetration.
3. Straight line penetration of FN over RN so far the objective field evidence points to the FN having an advantage, how much? Let's keep shooting brain shots on ele and find out. We need to follow JPK's field work example and come home with some objective field exidence. By the way I'm not bias towards either, I shoot Woody and GS solids out of my 500.

Dirk

if, if, if. Yes you are right of course. Length of bullet must match rate of twist. Same for long FMJ bullets by the way.. I was of course talking about the nose profile ONLY - everything else beeing equal.
And I am quite sure that you re wrong stating: "Overall penetration of FN solids better than RN solids on brain shots. I think the jury is still out on this one and a good RN like a Woody might have the edge"..

FNs are superior here as well, you might think that ele sculls are lots of hard bone - well actually it is not that impressive. Because of the honeycomp pattern. All the small spaces are fluid or airfilled.

I fully support Gerard with his FN solid bullet design. He has done a lot of research and testing by the way.

JPK

Please read this again;
I do not state that if a load or bullet "fails" in test medium that it is "LIKELY" to "Fail" in hunting situations!

I say:
That if if fails in test medium that it is "POSSIBLE" that it can fail in the field.

Likely---such as might happen or be true, probable, promising.

Possible---able to happen although not certian, a situation that may or may not occur or be so, to have potential to be so.

The word "Likely" implies that I am saying that it will probably happen--this is not what I said at all, so please don't twist or misquote what I actually said. Possible is a long way from Likely.

Do you do any test work before going on a hunt? Do you shoot your rifle at all? Do you test your ammo for accuracy? I bet you do. If not then you would be rather common in my book. I don't perceive you as being common!

Now let's say that you do test your ammo you are taking for accuracy. Let's say you are a persistent bugger and shoot at least 5 three round groups. Let's say that all 5 groups exhibit the same issue. Two rounds in the center, 1/2 inch high at 50 yds and the two touching, but in all 5 groups that one round drops 2 inches low and 2 inches left, or close to that! Now you have confidence that you are not snatching the trigger, so this must be some sort of issue with the ammo.

Now you try Brand 2. Now brand 2 gives you 3 rounds touching dead center 1/2 inch high at 50 yds--5 groups in a row! Perfect, depending on what you are looking for right?

But brand number 1 has been used forever, it looks good, it is what everyone else has used for 50 yrs. Both are loaded with the same bullet, but brand 2 shoots better in my gun.

Is it possible--possible now, not likely--that brand 1 might not shoot well in the field? Is it "Likely" that brand 2 will shoot well in the field? What will you choose?

If we do not pay attention to our test work, then why bother! I will tell you this, I will stand behind my test work and I have 100% confidence in it and the results. Whether someone else does or not is up to you. I am not trying to sell you this, just informing you of what I have found is all. My opinion, as good as yours and take it for what it is worth. But in the future try and pay a little closer attention to what I actually say, as in my mind "likely" is a long way from "possible".


Now once again JPK I am not sure what the issue is, as by your own statement we both agree that Flat Nose solids do a better job-on average! Once again no where do I say that RN will not nor never has done the job intended, just that the FN does it better!

Buffalo
Yes I would like to discuss this further, but maybe not on this thread.

465H&H

A very excellent question! How long it will take for any one individual to draw his own conclusions is an individual thing as I see it!

For me I have already done so. I conclude that a good Flat Nose solid is superior in EVERY way to any Round Nose solid or fmj! Deeper and straighter penetration, with less possibility of veering off course, and hits a damn sight harder up front! I have decided that this is my opinion on this matter! End of Story

Now again, don't twist this to quote me as saying the rn can't do the job and never has. That would be foolish as it has done so for 100 years or more! I don't care to be made a fool of and won't have it! So keep the facts and the quotes straight, don't veer off like a round nose please! Pun intended,thank you!

Now for someone like you it might take awhile before you would come to that conclusion. It could be years, or it could be the next buff you hit with one, I can't answer that. That depends on your experience and your ability to digest information. I am sure you have the experience, but the other I can't vouch for. And I am not saying MY information--you must gather your own.

Anything can fail--any bullet-any rifle-any cartridge-anything! Have FN Bullets failed? Of course they have. Round nose bullets? Of course they have. Nothing can escape this reality. We must take the best and do the best we can. I just would like to take the LEAST LIKELY of the evils that surround us. Old man Murphy is out there-I don't intend to give him a head start!

Buffalo
Thank you and in much agreement! Our time and experience can be put to better use elsewhere, this is beating a dead mule!

Michael

If Woodleigh FMJ RN change direction in the tests and solid FN don't,that's because the bore rifling can spin the Woodleighs and can't spin the FN's because they are made from bronze and they are too hard for the rifling to bite into.

quote:

Originally posted by buffalo:
I fully support Gerard with his FN solid bullet design. He has done a lot of research and testing by the way.

If you fully support Gerard, then the following might be interesting to you. Earlier this year (March-April) Gerard and I conversed on the subject of brain shots and all things being equal, velocity, length of bullet, etc., etc. he did not say to me that the FN had an advantage over a RN on penetration, but that the FN had an advantage on straight line penetration. On Gerard's web page there is a good writting on penetration concerning this matter, it was not written by him.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
If Woodleigh FMJ RN change direction in the tests and solid FN don't,that's because the bore rifling can spin the Woodleighs and can't spin the FN's because they are made from bronze and they are too hard for the rifling to bite into.

quote:

Originally posted by dirklawyer:

quote:

Originally posted by buffalo:
I fully support Gerard with his FN solid bullet design. He has done a lot of research and testing by the way.

If you fully support Gerard, then the following might be interesting to you. Earlier this year (March-April) Gerard and I conversed on the subject of brain shots and all things being equal, velocity, length of bullet, etc., etc. he did not say to me that the FN had an advantage over a RN on penetration, but that the FN had an advantage on straight line penetration. On Gerard's web page there is a good writting on penetration concerning this matter, it was not written by him.

In my world - if a solid is unstable it will veer of course. If a solid is unstable and veer of course it will be more LIKELY to tumble / going sideways etc.That will minimize penetration. I am not saying that a RN solid will do it every time, and sometimes it might even stay stable and give the same excellent penetration as a FN.

quote:

Originally posted by buffalo:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
If Woodleigh FMJ RN change direction in the tests and solid FN don't,that's because the bore rifling can spin the Woodleighs and can't spin the FN's because they are made from bronze and they are too hard for the rifling to bite into.

You don't think that something that is shot-gunned is more likely to stay in a straight line course than something that is intact,spinning and encounters resistance?

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:

quote:

Originally posted by buffalo:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
If Woodleigh FMJ RN change direction in the tests and solid FN don't,that's because the bore rifling can spin the Woodleighs and can't spin the FN's because they are made from bronze and they are too hard for the rifling to bite into.

You don't think that something that is shot-gunned is more likely to stay in a straight line course than something that is intact,spinning and encounters resistance?

What in God's name are you talking about?

OK here we go again, but a little different direction (pun intended)

Two stories-quick as I can, directly related to stability!

NOT IN ANIMAL FLESH AND BONE

In wet print/magazine mix! Also NOT COMPARING TO ANIMAL FLESH IN ANY WAY--Got it?

In testing to find a proper solid for my 50's we started with a 1:18 twist barrels. Great Accuracy, and expanding bullets zero issues with stability during penetration. But put those round nose solids (first prototype bullets0 to work not stable during penetration at all! Veer off course, out of the box most of the time. OK--new barrel with 1:12 Twist--slightly better penetration with the RN solids, but still veering off course, not as bad and most of them stayed in the box anyway! So it took a faster twist to stablize the RN--getting there! Then we flattened the nose and penetration increased substantially, and it was dead straight! So I ordered all new 50's with 1:12 twist barrels, all new bullets with flat meplats--issue solved!

What about the few rifles I had with the 1:18 twist? Well they are fine for expanding bullets, accurate and no issues with that. I had to try some of these new Flat Nose bullets just to see! Now this was a very limited test, with just a few bullets fired--but everyone of the Flat Nose bullets drove deep and straight, just like the 1:12 twist barrels!! OK, I know the round nose crowd is rolling around in agony now! Sorry-call'em like I see'em!

Also when working with the first flat nose profiles we used brass, copper and bronze solids-all engraved just fine with no issues. Bullets were sized proper to the barrel-bronze engraves just fine!

Next story! I promise to be short as I know how.

470 Capsticks! I was having a vision a few years ago and had a 470 Capstick built on a Winchester M70, then in Winchesters Custom Shop they came out with one of their then "Big Five" series rifles in 470 Capstick! I was on for two of those series guns. So now I had 3 470 Capsticks On Winchester M70s. I did all the load data and workups and had great loads with 500 grs at 2250 and so forth. First and foremost none of them would retain rounds in the magazine, Winchester could not sort it out either, and did not have a clue as to how to sort it out. Finally SSK got that sorted out. I missed taking these rifles on at least 2-3 hunts because they would not function proper in some manner or other!

Now, when I was testing the first prototype bullets in the 50's I decided to do some test work with the 470 Capsticks and 500 gr Barnes RN and Woodleigh FMJ round nose. Big surprise to me, but neither would stay in the box! Extremely unstable. Bullets laying around on the floor that I picked up had not engaged the rifling??? Not a mark on them, like from a shotgun! I had not measured the bullets, why would I, they were from Barnes and Woodleigh! I figured the custom shop had screwed up the barrels or something? I measured the bullets and both came out to .4725---not .474 or .475! No wonder they were not stable! It has been my intention to have some CNC bullets made with good proper FN's in .474 caliber, but have not done so yet! No, I have not slugged the barrel, probably for the same reason, I just have not been in a 470 mood for the last couple of years!

Story number one tells us what? That even in twist rates that are not optimum, a good flat nose profile can give great assistance to stability in penetration, another plus for the FN design. It also tells us that one must absolutely have the proper twist rate for the round noses as they are not as forgiving!

Story #1 also tells us that whether brass--copper or bronze that they do engage rifling and are stable.

Story #2 tells me I am too lazy to play with the 470s to do any better! Lack of interest I think!

Next!

Michael

Just because they engraved does not mean the bore rifling got into them and threw them well.When the bore is shot out or the bullets are udersized they will be shot sideways and turning,not spinning.This may prevent them from keeping a straight line course.Michael,how often did you clean your bore and how many rounds did you go with the same barrel?

quote:

Originally posted by buffalo:

quote:

Originally posted by dirklawyer:

quote:

Originally posted by buffalo:
I fully support Gerard with his FN solid bullet design. He has done a lot of research and testing by the way.

If you fully support Gerard, then the following might be interesting to you. Earlier this year (March-April) Gerard and I conversed on the subject of brain shots and all things being equal, velocity, length of bullet, etc., etc. he did not say to me that the FN had an advantage over a RN on penetration, but that the FN had an advantage on straight line penetration. On Gerard's web page there is a good writting on penetration concerning this matter, it was not written by him.

In my world - if a solid is unstable it will veer of course. If a solid is unstable and veer of course it will be more LIKELY to tumble / going sideways etc.That will minimize penetration. I am not saying that a RN solid will do it every time, and sometimes it might even stay stable and give the same excellent penetration as a FN.

Buffalo,

First, Dirk knows first hand what an elephant head consist of.

Second, in my experience, refrencing round nose steel jacketed solids, tumbling and straight line penetration are not nessecarily related. I have recovered a bunch of round nose steel jacketed solids that I am sure tumbled, either because of the visible path under skin or the varying width of the wound channel or bent bullet, flattened or split tails. Each of the recovered bullets was found where it should have been found if it traveled straight.

I believe that steel jacketed round noses have a strong tendency to tumble after they have lost a very significant portion of their velocity or rotational speed. But this happens well past the point where the bullets has done what it was required to do.

I agree that tunmbling essentially ends penetration. The one very visible track under a buff's hide showed about 3' of penetration, including through the spine, and then only about six inches after tumbling started.

JPK

If a big bullet hits a solid slanted object,it will tumble.

michael458

Please re-read my previous post. I did not critize bullet testing in any way.

I too have tested many different types of bullets over the years, from handgun[hunting and defense], soft point rifle, and solids for elephant and buff, in many different mediums.

However the only true results come from shots into actual animals [or people in the case of defensive ammo].

Sadly, no medium can approximate the real thing, some mediums are better than others but as you and others have stated the real thing is not homogenious, and each shot into the animal is different. That is why the real animal shots are the best test of all, as over time with several shots you get a "result basis" of bullet performance.

My problem with any media is, if you get results that are vastly different than real shots on game, then the media is flawed.

You do not test how an airplane will fly by testing it in water.

I do not think that the Round nose steel jacketed Woodleigh is Holy. They have always given more than adequate penetration for me in actual game shots.

However, I have had deeper straight line penetration with the NFFP solids in actual shots on game and I think it is a much better bullet. It is a shame that they are not in production, as Mike specifically designed his FP and Cup Point bullets to be safe in vintage British doubles.

Oh and if you think "bullet testing and the media used" is controversial, just do some research on the testing of Broadheads, and the "media" used there.

quote:

say:
That if if fails in test medium that it is "POSSIBLE" that it can fail in the field.

Likely---such as might happen or be true, probable, promising.

Possible---able to happen although not certian, a situation that may or may not occur or be so, to have potential to be so.

The word "Likely" implies that I am saying that it will probably happen--this is not what I said at all, so please don't twist or misquote what I actually said. Possible is a long way from Likely.


Now let's say that you do test your ammo you are taking for accuracy. Let's say you are a persistent bugger and shoot at least 5 three round groups. Let's say that all 5 groups exhibit the same issue. Two rounds in the center, 1/2 inch high at 50 yds and the two touching, but in all 5 groups that one round drops 2 inches low and 2 inches left, or close to that! Now you have confidence that you are not snatching the trigger, so this must be some sort of issue with the ammo.


If we do not pay attention to our test work, then why bother! I will tell you this, I will stand behind my test work and I have 100% confidence in it and the results. Whether someone else does or not is up to you. I am not trying to sell you this, just informing you of what I have found is all. My opinion, as good as yours and take it for what it is worth. But in the future try and pay a little closer attention to what I actually say, as in my mind "likely" is a long way from "possible".

Michael458,

If I misquoted you regarding "possible" and "likely" it was unintentional and does not change the gist of my earlier answer.

Here is the basis of our disagreement, your quote below:
"If we do not pay attention to our test work, then why bother! I will tell you this, I will stand behind my test work and I have 100% confidence in it and the results."

I don't doubt that you stand behind your test 100%. Hell, I've got 100% faith that the results of your test are as you reported and are reproducable. But my faith ends there since field experience contradicts important results of your tests, indicating their limited usefullness.

Test results in mediums other than the game in question provide at best some potentially useful inferences for later confirmation in field use or tests on the real target and that is all.

Regarding your example with the ammo, it is perfectly anologous with the test medium proble. That first load doesn't shoot well in your rifle. That is the only conclussion to be drawn, not the it doesn't shoot well in another rifle. Substitute "penetrate" for "shoot well" and "medium" for "rifle" and then read the sentence above.

The collary is that since load number 2 does shoot well in your rifle it will shoot well in all other rifles. Substitute words again. That is extending your tests too far.

I will be shooting some elephants during a "last minute" safari put together just days ago for October. I left all of my flat nose solids with the Appy PH on my May elephant hunt. I've got Woodleighs at 2145fps here loaded and ready to go and need to load solids for my 375H&H. Probably won't get around to loading any NF 450gr Flat noses. I am more than confident in the Woodleighs. Why? Especially now when you tell me that they failed to penetrate in a straight line or to penetrate deeply in your tests? Because they penetrate straight and deep in elephants!!!

JPK

JPK
Damn if you can't take more twists and turns than that Woodleigh FMJ you use that is undersized and a barrel with a too slow of a twist!

One minute you agree, the next you take that turn!

Twist this--my analogy with the ammo--First of all note "THERE IS ONLY ONE RIFLE BEING TESTED" not two! Where did you get two rifles from? I did not use two rifles in my analogy. There were two brands of ammo--one rifle! Twist and turn on it all you wish.

I am sorry I wasted your time and mine, I will do so no more. Have fun on your hunt.
Michael

Your example was one rifle, my anology was two mediums, which will produce diferent results just like two rifles with the same ammo.

Woodleighs don't curve or twist and turn, except apparently in the medium you use to test bullets. In elephants they track pretty straight and true, and front end first plenty far enough to do their job.

Are flat noses better, yes I believe so. Still, nothing wrong with a good steel jacketed round nose, Woodleigh or the old style Hornadays.

BTW, the Woodleighs and also the North Forks fully engrave in my rifle. Both barrels slug to the nominal european standard. Mike at NF had to increase the number of diriving bands on his bullet to accomodate oversize barrels though. And FYI, Some Woodleighs are apparently slightly tapered, or so I've been told. The 470 bullet is supposed to be one. Don't know this first hand though.

Reread 465H&H's post about being challenged when your proffer doesn't equal the observed field results from experience, especially collective experience. Expect a challenge. If you do a search under the African Hunting forum, you will find a query by 465H&H regarding solid bullets that didn't track straight. Of all those who have hunted elephant or buff with solids, there were three examples, including the one regarding the NF that I reiterated here in this thread, and that one might be counted twice. Personally I've shot about 75 solids into buff or eles, mostly flat nose NF's. I've dug for a good portion of them. Only that one flat nose veered off course enough to notice it if at all. So then, refer to NE 450 No2's post where he points out that when actual results in game do not correlate with test results, it time to question the test and not the subject of the test.

JPK

JPK
Challenge anything you want to. I have no issues with that, and stated unequivocally that medium is not the same as animal flesh. It is you and 450 that do not read my posts proper, then you both twist and turn things around, misquote most of what I had to say so that it will fit into your version.

This is counterproductive and now it has become repetitive over and over. Same old song and dance! Time to move on, this dead mule has been beat to a pulp.

You know I have a buddy, some years ago we would visit our local gun shops on a regular basis. Any of you ever hang around the gun shop? Hang around long enough and you can hear some of the biggest BS you ever heard in your life! Lot of shooters hanging around, some of the shooting deer at a 2000 yds and shooting 2 inch groups at 3 miles, doing this, doing that, or some such nonsense. He would ask them about it, then tell get into a discussion about it, once and awhile it would turn into an arguement. He would get frustrated, and the other chap frustrated. One day I asked him "Why do you do that?" He went into some sort of explaination about why, when he finished I replied, "You know you are wasting your time here". This fellow is stupid, he has been stupid all his life. He is most likely going to be stupid, all of his life. He is not going to listen to you, you are not going to change his mind, you are doing nothing but upsetting yourself for no reason! Simply a waste of time!

Good luck on your hunt!
Michael

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
This is counterproductive and now it has become repetitive over and over. Same old song and dance! Time to move on, this dead mule has been beat to a pulp.

You know I have a buddy, some years ago we would visit our local gun shops on a regular basis. Any of you ever hang around the gun shop? Hang around long enough and you can hear some of the biggest BS you ever heard in your life! Lot of shooters hanging around, some of the shooting deer at a 2000 yds and shooting 2 inch groups at 3 miles, doing this, doing that, or some such nonsense. He would ask them about it, then tell get into a discussion about it, once and awhile it would turn into an arguement. He would get frustrated, and the other chap frustrated. One day I asked him "Why do you do that?" He went into some sort of explaination about why, when he finished I replied, "You know you are wasting your time here". This fellow is stupid, he has been stupid all his life. He is most likely going to be stupid, all of his life. He is not going to listen to you, you are not going to change his mind, you are doing nothing but upsetting yourself for no reason! Simply a waste of time!

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
JPK
Challenge anything you want to. I have no issues with that, and stated unequivocally that medium is not the same as animal flesh. It is you and 450 that do not read my posts proper, then you both twist and turn things around, misquote most of what I had to say so that it will fit into your version.

This is counterproductive and now it has become repetitive over and over. Same old song and dance! Time to move on, this dead mule has been beat to a pulp.

You know I have a buddy, some years ago we would visit our local gun shops on a regular basis. Any of you ever hang around the gun shop? Hang around long enough and you can hear some of the biggest BS you ever heard in your life! Lot of shooters hanging around, some of the shooting deer at a 2000 yds and shooting 2 inch groups at 3 miles, doing this, doing that, or some such nonsense. He would ask them about it, then tell get into a discussion about it, once and awhile it would turn into an arguement. He would get frustrated, and the other chap frustrated. One day I asked him "Why do you do that?" He went into some sort of explaination about why, when he finished I replied, "You know you are wasting your time here". This fellow is stupid, he has been stupid all his life. He is most likely going to be stupid, all of his life. He is not going to listen to you, you are not going to change his mind, you are doing nothing but upsetting yourself for no reason! Simply a waste of time!

Good luck on your hunt!
Michael

Sorry you feel frustrated.

No one twisted your post or misquoted you in any meaningful way, 465H&H, 450NE No2 and I merely related our not inconsiderable experience with round nose steel jacketed solids in real hunting, with real elephants. (And also that of 500 Grains, a member here who we personally know.) Each of our real individual experience contradicts your tests; that ought to make you rethink your tests.

"A smart mans learns from his experience, a smarter man learns from those of others."

JPK

JPK
Oh quite contray, I feel not frustrated by you! It would be impossible for "You" to frustrate me. I deal with your kind on a regular basis, just another day to me!

I am no babe in the woods either by the way. Having only shot 6 elephants of my own, I may be a bit behind you boys, but no babe in the woods by any stretch! I dare say I shoot more big bore bullets in month than you have shot in your life! I am a vet of 26 safaris in Africa, and not all for elephant for sure. My wife is South African and every time we visit, and visit often, family and such I hunt somewhere, for something, not just SA either, Mozambique, Namibia, Zim (my favorite by far) Tanzania! I have hunted other areas of the world in addition. So don't tell me about your "REAL EXPERIENCE" young man, I don't care! Do not presume to take attitude with me, it is not in your interests to do so!

Further, I don't care that your "REAL EXPERIENCE" contradicts my test work. My test work is exactly what it is--a test! I never related it to anything other than what it was, a test for me to find an appropriate bullet that works for my cartridges, and rifles. I did this,and it works for me. I did not do it for comparison to anything else, only to meet my goals. I needed and desired base lines in which I could make educated decisions from, and thus I was also testing other bullets in EQUAL medium! Now I don't know what part of this you cannot understand, but that is simply it, no more no less. I never said that because it would not work in my tests that it would not work in the world, and further more I said several times that my first 4 elephants were in fact shot with round nose bullets and they are deader than Abe Lincoln is right now! I have the ivory hanging over my fireplace as I write this--shot with round nose bullets! Now What is your problem? If you think for one second that I will change or rearrange my test work here because of your demands, you clearly have lost your mind! You do not have enough to keep you busy if you can fixate your frustrations on me! Please by all means use Round Nose bullets for all your hunting regardless of what you hunt. I am sure they will do fine-in fact they are the best JPK, the very best you can get, now go shoot some please!

Now what are you going to do? I STATE ROUND NOSE BULLETS ARE GREAT--I think JPK is the man! You the Man JPK! NOW WHAT? Where you going to go now?

Yes you did twist what I said, several times. I pointed out each time, I can only assume you do not understand that either.

JPK you are so narrow minded that it would be impossible for someone to learn from you and your real world experiences. I can only learn from those that are willing to learn from others, you are not willing to do so. I don't need a teacher thank you. You have but one thing to relate---ROUND NOSE BULLETS ARE GOOD!

Now that I have said so myself I am very interested in where you would like to take this now?

Now are you happy? Can we be friends again?

Thank you
Michael

I get a kick out this post, lots of ad hominem attack and enough self contradiction to make a plate of spegetti look straight.

Michael458, your not frustrated, eh?

I doubt you deal with my kind evvery day, my kind is a guy going elephant hunting, again.

And about not willing to learn from others, jeez, that is the pot calling the kettle black!

JPK