The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Big Bores FLAT NOSE SOLIDS - Are you convinced?Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| One of Us |
| ||
|
| one of us |
No brainer, that question be.  | |||
|
| one of us |
I don't think there is any doubt given the research done. HOWEVER I've yet to use flat point solids on game. Next time I will. I must say I've had real good luck with 500 gr woodleigh solids. In anycase I'll be using flat points in the future. | |||
|
| one of us |
The same logic applies to why wadcutter bullets are way more effective on bringing down a person than a FMJ round nose is. The more frontal area, the more inertia is transferred. -Spencer | |||
|
One of Us |
Forgive my ignorance but a flat nose should transferre more inertia, no argument there, but does this not result in LESS penetration? | |||
|
One of Us |
I don't think it has much to do about the shape as much as the construction of the bullet. Weak bullets fail, though ones don't. We are talking DG hunting, I presume, so the speed of impact is in the range of 1800-2400 f/s. One can hardly put this up against .308 spitzer fmj's at an impact-speed of 2500 - 2800 f/s. Speed/shape/caliber will make theese bullets outpenetrate almost anything, reach any vitals, but delivers poor shock and at impact gives away few shot reactions in the animal. Simmilar though construction, roundnose up against flatnose? One might beat the other, but with how much? Does it really matter? 29" or 26"? Bent Fossdal Reiso 5685 Uggdal Norway | |||
|
| one of us |
Ive never shot buffalo or elephant (yet) but plan to next year. I have some 500gn woodleigh solids on order but am thinking of going towards the 450gn Barnes banded solids and TSX bullets for the hunt. I suppose the Barnes banded solids are the ones people are talking about when they say flat nosed solids? Sympathy please ,I have champagne tastes and beer budget | |||
|
| One of Us |
500 I think the key issue- far above total depth of penetration is straightness of penetration. There is no point in putting your bullet in the right place only to have it deflect...  The sharper the ogive the worse the deflection problem. The .470 always showed the least penetration and the highest incidence of deflected bullets out of any of the old .450-577 Nitro Express class of cartriges. (how the heck it became the standard when there were many better rounds I don't understand). P.S. I notice the web version of La Granges "Ballistic in perspective" does not include the raw data or even a complete summery of the culling results. Will look for it and put it up. | |||
|
| One of Us |
No, a TSX is not a flat nose solid. An example flat nose solid is this line-up from Bridger:  Bridger: http://www.custombrassandbullets.com/BridgerBullets.html FN solids are also available from http://www.northorkbullets.com, from http://www.gscustom.co.za, from Rhino bullets, and very recently from Barnes in their brass solids. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Ganyana, I don't doubt the difference in straight line penetration between FN and RN solids, but so far any deflection that I have experienced with RN solids has been too small for me to detect under field conditions. However, the RNs do seem to tumble, as their bases are often squished a little, even with the Woodleigh steel liner. | |||
|
| One of Us |
500grains, I have read around a bit, there are a few threads about the same subject now, and I see that You state flatnoses penetrate 20% deeper than roundnoses. That is more than I would have guessed, but I conclude You have done enough testing to be confidente. In a parallel thread, You mentioned reversing A-square bullets. Now, that would be a test that would pretty much be the end of the dicussion, and make any poll useless! Do we see that in the future? Ps. All Barnes Solids referred to as Banded have flat noses. Bent Fossdal Reiso 5685 Uggdal Norway | |||
|
One of Us |
Yes, although the data are not overwhelming, it does seem incontrovertible that FNSs penetrate more deeply than RN solids. Whether the difference has any material effect on game is another question. Mike Wilderness is my cathedral, and hunting is my prayer. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I think you would have to add a caveat that it might not hold true for all round nose and flat nose bullets. It seems to me that the round nose has a higher ballistic coefficient at the same weight in air and I think that would hold on animal tissue, water and phone books etc. However, the round nose has more chance of tumbling and hence loses its ballistic coefficient advantage. In other words I think if the round nose stays point forward then it will out penetrate the flat nose. There are perhaps different shaped round nose bullets available that will be more inclined to stay point forward than other round noses. But the plus the flat nose will have is that it offers adequate penetration and will offer more wounding power than a round nose that stays point forward. Mike | |||
|
| One of Us |
Bent, 20% deeper based on my own experience with game. Others may have observed different results. Ray A. of this forum has shot quite a bit of game with FN solids and may have a differing view. Also note that there is as yet no evidence that the flattened round nose design of the new Barnes or Rhino solids perform as well as a large meplat frusto-conical as found in Bridger, North Fork and GS Custom FN solids. A final observation is that a larger flat meplat tends to lead to deeper penetration, giving me much better penetration with a .500 NE than with a .375, both using FN solids. | |||
|
| one of us |
A resounding yes on this one. After thousands of rounds in to media and game there is not a doubt in my mind that the FN is the king of penetration. Personally 500grains estimate of 20% is quite conservative in my book. If we talk about soft tissue penetration it's closer to 60% while in bone the advantage drops to being only slightly better but still better (in the area of 10%). So if you take a direct average 35% seems reasonable to me but most shots are into soft tissue and this weights the results. I put it at 45% better for actual field penetration. A bit off topic but important to know is that these FN bullets do a lot of internal damage on the non dangerous game available. Depending on speed and meplat diameter the vapor bubble in tissue can be up to 2-3" in diameter. This bubble of air passes thru the animal at the same speed as the bullet effectively creating a 2-3" diameter wound channel. It's not like a typical wound but tears the tissue and I think acts more like a broadhead in creating a tremendous amount of bleeding. Couple that with the cutting action of the FN and you give the released blood a place to go and the animal bleeds out very fast. | |||
|
| One of Us |
It would have been nice if a "Not Convinced" option was included. From what I have read here and in published results it appears that FNS do penetrate further than RNS in soft tissue. It is not clear that the same applies to head shots on elephant or that straight line penetration is different between these two bullet types. Another important question is if we give that the FNS penetrates further in soft tissue, does that mean that the RNS doesn't penetrate far enough on any shot taken? 465H&H | |||
|
| One of Us |
Fritz 454, I think it's great that you want to settle the issue as I think we all would. A couple of thoughts for you. One is that I don't think it is necessary for several people to run the tests in the same manner. I have never doubted the reults of any of the posters here. I just assume that they report what they see. The biggest problem is that we don't have a test medium that we all can agree will duplicate results observed in game. Rips experiments with the Iron Buffalo are great but there is plenty of evidence that pure water is very tough on bullets. In game there is no pure water except for possibly an elephants spare water tank. Musle, lung and other internal organs are a mixture of water and tissue. Consequently, it may and possibly is impossible to duplicate soft game tissue and to try to duplicate the head of an elephant is beyond imagination. It seems to me that the best way would be a truely huge number of tests on elephants or buffalo under field conditions. Then pooling the results to look for trends. The real questions to me are which bullet type has the best straight line penetration and does either not penetrate far enough to do the job. So far I have shot all my buff and elephants with RN Woodleigh or Hornady solids. They have been more then adequate for what I asked them to do. I would like to try your FNS this coming year on elephants. 465 H&H | |||
|
| one of us |
465H&H - Repeatability is the cornerstone of lab tests. The results must be repeatable or the test is viewed as flawed. By having a number of people conduct the test the more validity is in the results. You are right that testing media is not game and as such will never be apples to apples however we can get a lab result that can be used to approximate penetration. This along with field reports would over time lead to some definite conclusions. Unfortunately few could shoot enough elephant or buffalo to ever get there and if we left it to the masses the results would be invalid because there is no consistent measurement format to follow. Also a dead animal is hard to consistently measure as once it's lying down the shape and thus the distance has changed. It would also be hard to get straight line penetration as the animal could be twisted upon falling and thus the path may seem to deflect but while it was standing it did not. The point of my proposed test it simply to see if a FN penetrates deeper than RN. This can be achieved with a setup like the iron Buffalo. It will compare the depth of a RN to FN and that is it. As for your point "does it matter". RNs kill game not a doubt about that but a solid's only purpose, in my mind, it to drive deep and straight. Deeper and straighter is better. I believe FN do just that and if my definition of a solid is correct then a bullet that does that is a better bullet. Another issue here is that FNs do more internal damage than a RN. This is a separate test that I think should be done in a scientific way. I have noticed the amount of damage to the inside of animals (soft tissue) is much more dramatic than a RN bullet. I attribute this to the vapor bubble as it transverses the animal at the same speed as the bullet is moving. All that tissue is forced to get out of the way and the structural integrity of internal organs and muscle can't take the stress and thus they tear. This creates a lot of damage and hence blood loss leading to quicker kills. I haven't thought up a way to measure this as it's a bit hard to put a high speed camera into a live animal and then shoot it but hopefully someday I'll find a way. I believe 550Grains had a similar experience with a Bison he shot. Maybe he'll chime in on this one but it is what I've seen. Anyway, I’m going to do the test as posted on another thread regardless of anyone else’s participation. Any suggestions are appreciated but let’s keep it on the other post and not hijack this one.  Sorry 500Grains. Now back to the topic. John | |||
|
| One of Us |
In addition to greater depth of penetration, when FN solids are used I have also noticed wider wound channels than with RN solids. In particular, I have seen a tearing of flesh, particularly lung tissue, 3-4 inches away from the path of the bullet. The tearing is like the tearing of piece of paper, and completely different from the bloodshot effect that you would see when using a lead core expanding bullet. Also, with an FN solid the entrance and exit holes do not close over easily, so blood trails tend to be easier to follow. Now back to the poll! | |||
|
| One of Us |
Ok, I am covinced. When finnished, my 10,75x68 is going to be loaded with FN solids and used for red deer! Bent Fossdal Reiso 5685 Uggdal Norway | |||
|
| One of Us |
Fritz 454! My appologys as I had no intention of high jacking this thread. I had intended it for the other thread but somehow got it on this one.  | |||
|
one of us |
500grains, you may have missed my posting on comparision of the SuperPenetrator with Barnes FN: Barnes FN penetration Same straigth line penetration as with other sharp edgd FN´s. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Norbert, Do the Barnes FN's do as well as FNs with larger meplats? | |||
|
| One of Us |
500 Again need to compare monos with monos... I have yet to see an A square bullet tumble. Art concluded after dissecting elephants shot on the culls that his blunt ogive gave the least risk of deflection. It seems good- but the flat nosed mono's I had made up for the calibres we didn't have A square ammo for worked superbly (when hard enough). Flat nosed conventional solids like those Federal rounds with a T on top fishtail when fired at close range from a .375 H&H They are obviously trying to tumble like the woodleighs. I would conclude that there is a tendency for all bullets to try and tumble- we had some mono's made up out of 50/50 brass and they chipped pieces off the back of the bullets on head shots  I suspect that correct rifeling twist rate for bullet weight/length/ velocity is crutial to best penetration. For instance a .375 always penetrated better when a300grn bullet is loaded down to 2450fps. A 9,3x62 typically out penetrates a .375H&H (with conventional solids) on elephant body shots. Yes, the higher impact velocity may be causing the .375 bullet to yaw too much reducing penetration, but a more stable bullet? | |||
|
| One of Us |
There are two reasons why having a broad meplat is more desirable than a RN on a non-expanding hunting bullet. 1). on a non-expanding bullet, wound channel diameter is more of a product of meplat diameter than bullet diameter. 2). non-expanding RN bullets have a greater disparity between front and rear weights which creates instability and yaw upon impact reducing the penetration potential of the bullet. Having a broader meplat corrects this front to rear disparity and increases bullet stability upon impact maximizing penetration potential. So how much meplat? Just enough to correct front to rear weight disparity. When the meplat diameter is just broad enough to correct front to rear weight disparity in a given non-expanding bullet, you will have maximum penetration potential. If you further increase the meplat diameter at this point, you will then reduce that penetration potential. Gary | |||
|
| one of us |
The Barnes FN meplat is relativ large, 8 mm in .458. It is sharp cut on a somewhat conical nose, not on a hemispherical one. If the nose is designed optimal, the meplat can be smaller, my SP is 7.3 mm. I have good results also with 5 mm, but the nose than has to be slim and the bullet becomes too long.
At close range the angle of yaw is too great, the stabilisation by cavitation (bubble forming) is not possible. Here comes the twist into place. as you suggests.
ad 1). Right ad 2). No. The broader meplat doesn´t correct for penetration by correcting for weight. It is the stability generated by the cavitation bubble. The meplat diameter depends on nose shape etc. for keeping the bubble intact as long as possible. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Norbert, Exactly what you say, I just did a poor job of it. See the other two posts. In 1994 I had this very same discussion w/ a fellow high power rifle competitor. He had just retired as a rocket scientist (his title was long)for the United States Government. His specialty was exterior ballistics for nuclear missiles. He went over the same material, same stuff, same physics. It wasn't new then and it's not new now. Gary | |||
|
| one of us |
Bullet manufacturers are very resistent to new or even older findings. So I started my statements in 1999, with no response from the big, but smaller ones started to copy. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Norbert, I wish to clarify my question. Bridgers have a much wider meplat than Barnes or SuperPenetrators. Do you have any evidence that a bullet with a much wider meplat does/does not penetrate deeper than one with a smaller meplat? | |||
|
| one of us |
The diameter of the meplat is a compromise. At least you have to take into account: sharpness of the edge, evtl. protruding; and the design of the nose up to the cylindric part of the bullet. For .458 500 grs Vo 2350 f/s a diameter of 7.3 mm and an tangent ogive with radius 5 caliber is optimal. Generally you loose penetration in bone and hard test materials with wider meplats. I aqueous media it depends on the drag function and the shear resistance of the tissue, which varies. A wider meplat may show some less penetration. With a proper design of the bullet, a too wide meplat doesn´t penetrate deeper than a smaller. | |||
|
| one of us |
| |||
|
| One of Us |
On body shots, I found that generally speaking, the wider the meplat and the sharper its edge, the greater the penetration. However, the sample space is too small for valid statistical comparison. | |||
|
| one of us |
I don't know which has the best penitration, both have more than enough so its a moot question as far as I am concerned, at least in all the calibers I have used them in, 9.3 x 62, 375, 404, 416s, 458 Lott, 458 win, 450-400, 470, 500 Jefferys (Pierres) and 505 Gibbs, oh yes and green, gunky, dirty 8x57 military ball... I do know the Flat nose solid is the better killer of game, both plainsgame and dangerous game of any kind... Both penitrate straight enough for me with modern monolithics and Woodleighs.. Ray Atkinson Atkinson Hunting Adventures 10 Ward Lane, Filer, Idaho, 83328 208-731-4120 rayatkinsonhunting@gmail.com | |||
|
| one of us |
/ | |||
|
| one of us |
Totally disagree !!!! Completely disproven by field results. Theory is fine but if it dosen't hold to real world observations it's time to rethink. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Alf, I think if you shot several head of game on the same hunt with both FN and RN solids, you would see the difference in wound channels that the rest of us are talking about. | |||
|
Moderator |
You guys all have screwy priorities...this guy just came back from a sheep hunt and his first post is about FN vs RN, and you guys are already arguing about it..geezuz!!!....SO, how the heck did you make out on your sheep hunt ALF?????? (and I don't mean to ask if you "made out" with a sheep. I am not sure where your "sheep shagging" reference comes from, but it surely isn't a local term!) Cheers, Canuck | |||
|
one of us |
Inquiring minds want to know.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
If Alf wants to tell us about his sheep hunt, I will be interested to read about it. But it would not be polite to pry. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Big Bores FLAT NOSE SOLIDS - Are you convinced?
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
