Dave,

Regarding Michael's comments criticizing Barnes, you can call me guilty of that as well. I was, and am a huge fan of the TSX bullet. Was a fan of the BBS also. The criticism from me was not so much that they went back to the round nose bullet because of feeding issues in cheap rifles. I realize most people who own big bores do so without any intention of hunting Africa. If they had just come out and said, "Due to feed issues in some rifles, Barnes has decided to modify the Banded Solid to the Round Nose Design", everything would have been fine from a reputation standpoint. The issue, at least for me, was that Barnes tried to tell us the reason for switching is that the Round Nose is more effective than the Flat Nose. When all empirical evidence exists to the contrary, this is simply nothing more than a lie. I just don't like being lied to, therefore my comments.

For someone who is not likely to hunt dangerous game with their rifle, ensuring proper feed is obviously less important. But I've had one rifle with a serious feed problem; a push feed M70 in 458WM. I purchased that rifle back before I began reloading and as such, was pretty much stuck with whatever factory loads I could find in the small East Texas town I lived in. As you can imagine, slim pickings.

That rifle fed Winchester ammo with solids just fine. But I purchased a box of 510 grain softs in a Browning package once. I quickly found that those cartridges wouldn't even come close to feeding. The jacket edge would catch on the feed ramp every time.

I had that rifle worked on to get those rounds to feed. Then, I purchased a box of Winchester softs and they wouldn't feed! I finally sold that rifle.

The point being that a rifle that hasn't been tuned to feed any and all bullet types, shapes, and designs is likely to surprise you at some point by hanging up. I am confident in saying that a rifle that feeds some bullets and not others, will at some point in time, fail to feed the bullets you think are working satisfactorily. Again, if you're just shooting paper plates, not as big of a problem. Even at that, it would drive me crazy knowing there was a hitch with the rifle.

Some folks purchase a 4WD vehicle and never take it off the pavement. Sort of like buying a big bore and never taking it to Africa. Others, do so on a regular basis. You pretty quickly find that the typical street tires found on most 4WD SUV's won't get you across a flooded field to your duck blind. So you put a good set of BF Goodrich T/A Radials on it but they cause the vehicle to pull to the right. Now, do you put the old street tires back on it and just sit home and watch TV on rainy days when you'd rather be duck hunting; do you constantly hold a bit of left pressure on the wheel and drive with it out of alignment; or do you take it in and spend $50 or so having the front end aligned?

I get the front end aligned myself. I just can't stand to have something that is designed to do a certain job that can't do that job due to some minor flaw. To each his own I guess.

Dave




A wonderful post Dave! Very well said, written, and thought out! I personally thank you for stating clearly your view of parts of this subject matter, and I can find, NO FAULT with it.

There are minor, and I mean minor parts of your post that we can speak about, but overall, you bring myself to some reality, and that reality is this, every rifle out there is not a Dangerous Game Rifle, even some of the big bores, and many guys, as you state, don't use these rifles for that purpose. This is absolutely true.

Here is the deal, I live, breath, think, sleep, dream, eat and drink, dangerous game rifles, bullets, cartridges, every day, every minute, every waking and sleeping minute that I am not involved with either work or family. Possibly "Obsessive" somewhat with the subject. I have devoted a great deal of study, research, test work, everything to improve on the rifles, bullets and cartridges for said issue, Dangerous Game. So I tend to forget there are other purposes for big bore rifles, and even other rifles of medium and small bore. Those are not, and never have been my first or even second line of thought process. It just never occurs to me that there is any other use for said type rifles. Sure, I always think of secondary purposes, taken the plains game with the same rifle, so one does not carry a specific medium for that task, or even a small bore. Big Bore does it all, tailor the bullet for the project, always with DG as Primary.

And of course if you are not on the trail of elephant, buffalo, hippo, lion or leopard or the bears, then most common conventional bullets will do the job for you. They will also work on the above DG, but a proper bullet does a better job on many fronts. So yes, I see your point very well, and it's a good point.

You see, point of fact is, that when I started this thread, it never entered my mind that I was speaking about anything other than rifles used for Dangerous Game. My Mind tells me, ALL Big Bore RIFLES ARE FOR DANGEROUS GAME! LOL............. That is their PRIMARY DUTY. To me of course, my thought processes. I knew this about myself, but actually you have brought it to light for me clearly. Now, will I remember that in the morning? I doubt it, my thought process is rather stuck in a mode of operation that I am quite sure this is a very temporary reprieve, and I will return to what I know. HEH.... Very funny to have this rather enlightening revelation eh?

So please, all of you must remember this well, as almost anytime I say something about a subject it might be very straight line concerning Dangerous Game rifles/bullets, and I might have little or no concern about secondary purposes. My apologies to all, but do understand that is my thought process and not much I can do about it. Please feel free to remind me of such, when needed.


Now Dave, Yeah, Pissed with Barnes about that situation with the RN vs FN. I understand exactly why they did such a stupid thing, however, what pisses me of and insults my intelligence is the fact that when they touted the FN Barnes Banded, it was the best, provided straight line penetration, and hit hard up front! Now since they made a move back to the RN so it would feed in "Cheap Ass Rifles" For Cheap Ass People, they tell us all that straight line penetration and advantages of hitting hard up front was ONLY "PERCEIVED" and not real! How insulting! They may think all shooters are stupid, however, I beg to differ on that! That is what pisses me off with Barnes, and I will probably be pissed off about that the rest of my natural life! On the flip side of that, speaking purely bullet terminals only and not COMPANY BS--The Barnes Banded Solid was one hell of a good bullet! One of the TOP Nose Profiles overall, and when they kept to THEIR original formula, a 65% meplat of caliber, it was a fine bullet. On the TSX front, when they went to the multiple bands, the TSX became one of the most accurate bullets in nearly every rifle I had, until the Lehigh and CEB bullets came along in brass and copper that I started using. And terminals for the TSX are the very best amongst Conventionals--even though it is an all copper bullet, its terminal behavior is conventional, and it's great. I have and do use them. Still I am pissed at Barnes and always will be. But truth is truth.

Woodleighs? Yes I am sure everyone on the planet thinks I hate Woodleigh. That is not true, I like Woodleigh Softs, they have always been great bullets IF you realize and work within each bullets velocity limits. For instance, my own 416 B&M was designed or I thought of it, as a great thin skinned dangerous game rifle/cartridge, and designed around the 340 gr Woodleigh Pointy bullet I had used in Tanzania with such success in 2005. Woodleigh makes some great conventional soft bullets. FMJ RN--No you would be correct, I despise them! You know all of them are not created equal. The 458 nose is more round, it's actually the best of the big bores, for a RN which ain't worth a shit in hell to begin with of course. The .472 (should be .474-all mine are .472 or .4725 to reduce barrel strain I suspect) is an awful design, more pointy than 458. The .510 is bad, and is the .585 both more pointy. Dropping to the 320 9.3 Woodleigh, its great in it's terminals, incredible in fact, but drop to the 286 FMJ and it's just as awful as the rest. For doubles, the FMJ is always at or near the top of the list in barrel strain for doubles! It also produces 5000-7000 more PSI than the same exact load with the Soft. No, I see little use for that FMJ version, it can be replaced with something, hell, anything.

OK, you see, I am quickly headed back to my continued DG thought processes! HEH.....

Where is my Medication? Hmmmmmm?

Thanks Dave, again a good post and good points, job well done. But ONLY WHEN IT DOES NOT CONCERN A REAL LIVE Dangerous Game Rifle!!!!!!!!

Michael

Dave

OK, back to MY REALITY! HEH HEH... ??????

quote:

I am sticking with the Woodleighs because I know they will feed every time. Since I have every confidence in the Woodlieghs, I don't think my gun needs to be "fixed" because I don't think it is "broken".

You do mean Woodleigh Softs right? Since you don't have much use of a solid, not hunting DG?

I love solids, and I love good solids, proper designed solids. Not just for DG like buffalo, hippo, elephant, but all sorts of game, even kudu for instance!

Since 2006 until June of last year, I made it a practice for every hunt my load out has been, Expanding Conventional or NonCon up front, backed by solids. Even plains game, even bear and various thin skins. Why? Insurance. If I can shoot, I will shoot until the problem is solved, or I can't shoot for reasons of not having a shot, or I am out of ammo. The problem is only solved with that last insurance shot, or you are 110% sure the problem is solved. Keeps from loosing game. Scenario--Let's say you take that first shot, if it does not drop dead on the spot, what does that animal do 90% of the time? Turn and run eh? What is your shot from that angle? Up the rear, most of the time, or at a severe angle a lot of the time. What is the best sort of bullet in that situation? I tell you what is the best bullet, a proper Flat nose Solid, hits hard causing trauma, breaks bones if contacted, and drives straight through anything to get to the vitals. What better bullet is there for such a mission? Regardless if it is elk, moose, kudu, or eland! One cannot always rely on even the best of conventionals to go all the way through and reach vitals from the rear of the larger typical non dangerous game animals. This has proven successful for me and I intend to continue doing so.

I changed up just a bit last year because of the BBW#13 NonCon. I went heavy loaded with the NonCons in .500 and .458. Several times, on buffalo I never even loaded solids! Never had I done that, not once, not ever. Damned NonCon is so good and penetrates so deep. I won't go so far as to say that you can get by without a solid if you are using a NonCon, I have not committed myself to that yet, but it sure is close! My followup on the buffalo that wanted to bite me was with a NonCon up front, It did a hell of a number on his noggin when it entered just below and to the right of his left eye--blew out a full fist size hole in his skull, he did not need anything else and was on the way down when I busted him with a solid. He was "well done".

There are reasons to have solids, proper ones, even when not hunting dangerous game, and I consider the BBW#13 NonCon about the most deadly trauma producing bullet I have ever seen or witnessed in my life time of shooting, so it deserves consideration in that respect to being able to feed in a rifle as well. Of course the new Raptors that are coming have tips supplied, so that should solve most feed issues in lesser rifles anyway.

I also fall in the same camp with Todd-- My Obsessive Compulsive Nature would not allow me a seconds worth of peace if I had a rifle, that I actually intended to go to the field with and not delegated to range or test work, that would not feed anything of my choosing. If I had to choose a bullet so my rifle would feed and function, that would not work for me, I would have to have it sorted out.

I am not saying your approach is wrong, since your Primary duty is not dangerous game, but there are reasons other than dangerous game to do so as well. Maybe I am the only nut that would use solids in some of the capacity I do, not saying you need to, but I see little or no downside to it.

Lot's of good thoughts and conversation I concur. I loves Todds analogy about the 4WD. Excellent!

Oh and Dave, don't forget about barrel strain in your doubles either! If you consider barrel strain an issue?

Later
Michael

I have just discovered - thanks to AR member jjbull - that the BBW #13 480gr from my .458Lott which shattered the left shoulder, penetrated through the body and came to rest under the hide of the right shoulder of my tuskless, where it was recovered in essentially pristine condition, passed through a tree branch of between 1"-2" diameter on its way to the Elephant.

That's correct, it can be seen on the video. Apparently there was no deviation - straight line penetration - as it entered where intended and did the damage expected. This speaks to the exceptional capability of incredible performance that can reasonably be expected from these bullets. It was because of the trees/brush that I decided to take the incapacitating shoulder shot rather than to chance a miss on the brain and then have an Ele off and running in the thick stuff.

I do not, however, recommend shooting through sticks when it can be avoided even with the CEB bullets.

Another reason to shoot flat nose bullets!
Less deflection!
Who knows what would have happened with a round nose.

quote:

Rob:
I have to honestly say that when I work on my own guns and for select friends, the standard I use is that it will FEED and EJECT an EMPTY CASE 100% reliably( even upside down). For the big buck custom rifle maker supporters and unfortunately as a result, doubters here, sorry dudes, but yes, it can be done!

for Rob:

would you be able to suggest how you would probably solve a CZ550 that had trouble feeding Barnes flatnose solids?
The rifle in question sits in Tanzania which makes it more than problematic to even consider sending it out for feeding work. I am not a gunsmith and do no metalwork, but I will be showing up in Tanzania this year with a Dremel in hand.

What do you recommend trying?
If grinding down the follower or ramp, do you have any pictures?

If that doesn't work I could ask around a couple of the PHs for advice, but none was suggested to me in the camp where I discovered the feeeding problem. (Our solution last year was to put the good feeding rifle in the hands of whose turn it was to shoot. [My son and I have 'matching' 416Rigbys, 'cepting for the feeding issue.])

Michael,

quote:

I would not take to the field with a rifle that would not feed and function with proper designed bullets!

Amen. Any rifle that will not feed FN bullets reliably, sooner or later, will hang up with anything else. Ask any gunsmith worth his salt.

zimbabwe,

quote:

I've been building big bore rifles since 1952 when I attended Trinidad State. I have a cursory understanding of how a rifle feeds and have never built one that didn't.

This is what part time leads to. When one does something for a living, one must pay more attention. When one wants to be really good at something, one must pay much more attention.

416Tanzan- Man I wish you and the gun were here. I'm sure I could talk you through it. In Tanzania, gonna be tough. Best thing is to really watch closely what the cartridge is doing when its trying to feed. Is the flat nose hitting the side of the ramp and jaming? I've seen CZ's do that alot, right where the ramp joins the receiver at the top. Is it hitting the bottom of the ramp? You can fix those two easily enough. Try to see why its doing something before you remove metal. Unfortunately its often a combination of things that are just not right, not just one obvious thing. Is the cartridge coming up straight along the rails or porposing? Now its way more complicated and may require some filing and shaping of the rails and/or the extractor itself. Lots of converted CZ's have extractors that are too tight and won't let the rim pop up behind the bolt easily. Same situation with the follower ( may be shaped wrong for the cartridge). Be very careful as the extractor needs enough tension to keep a loaded case secure. Spring too weak? The shape of the extractor is very important too. Sometimes the top of the mag box isn't flush with the receiver bottom sides and pushes the cartridge over too far and it won't sit against the rails properly. You really need to watch and remove as little metal as possible in very small increments as you can't easily put it back. Use the Dremel with extreme care. these are some of the basics to look for. Wish I could help more.-Rob

Gerard,I'm sorry you have such poor work ethics and such a short attention span as to believe just because you do something for money it causes you to 'pay more attention'. Since you have never seen any of my work and I have never seen any of yours I will reserve comment on the quality of your workmanship. It could also be reasonably argued that one who does not have the pressures of doing something for money has the time to pay more attention to what he is doing. There are a surprising number of smiths on this forum who seem to require help in making firearms feed properly with flat nosed bullets. While I don't do it for a living I have been building rifles for almost 60 years and the reason I didn't do it for a living (I am retired) was I realized early on that it was not the best paying occupation available and unless your talent is exceptional success would be limited. I have been proven correct in this assessment many times. While I was a competant builder of custom rifles when I was active I would be the first to admit they would not be considered exceptional examples of the gunsmithing art. I would ,however, put my knowledge level of the constructon of rifles on a par with any on this forum. I think what disturbs me most about these forums is the certainty by some that their answer is the only valid one available to anyone and anyone who disagrees with their 'expertise' is decidedly inferior in intellect. This thread started with the title of 'Feed & Function of Bolt Guns with Proper Bullets'. The very assumption of the premise that there is even such thing as a 'proper' bullet is immediately suspect. I have never negatively stated that flat nosed bullets were not effective or questioned the research of the parties who developed them. I contend and will continue to do so that it is much more difficult to cause a rifle to feed them than the conventional design bullets the action was originally designed to feed properly. I have seen rifles that fed empty rounds easily because the open case end of thin brass usually deformed when hitting the ramp and fed into the chamber when a round nosed soft would not feed. When I was actively building rifles I was perfectly competant to make ANY round feed. I personally don't know of a single repeating bolt action rifle in the world with a normal box magazine that was initially designed to feed flat nosed rounds. Clip fed designs are straight line feeders and the Mannlicher Schoeneur rotary magazine come to mind as the closest to all purpose designs but their popularity has been limited over the years and the box magazine reigns supreme in bolt guns. In almost all cases they derived from military designs that only fired FMJ bullets of either round or spire-point configuration. Even the venerable 1911 Colt was designed to fire round nosed ball ammunition and when the various flat nose,semi-wadcutter type ammunition began to be used in matches the most oft work required was feeding modification even to the extent of machining the frame to accept modified barrels with a special ramp. I am sorry if I have offended the sensibilities of anyone on this forum for having a DIFFERENT view of the situation.

quote:

416Tanzan- Man I wish you and the gun were here. I'm sure I could talk you through it. In Tanzania, gonna be tough. Best thing is to really watch closely what the cartridge is doing when its trying to feed. Is the flat nose hitting the side of the ramp and jaming? I've seen CZ's do that alot, right where the ramp joins the receiver at the top. Is it hitting the bottom of the ramp? You can fix those two easily enough. Try to see why its doing something before you remove metal. Unfortunately its often a combination of things that are just not right, not just one obvious thing. Is the cartridge coming up straight along the rails or porposing? Now its way more complicated and may require some filing and shaping of the rails and/or the extractor itself. Lots of converted CZ's have extractors that are too tight and won't let the rim pop up behind the bolt easily. Same situation with the follower ( may be shaped wrong for the cartridge). Be very careful as the extractor needs enough tension to keep a loaded case secure. Spring too weak? The shape of the extractor is very important too. Sometimes the top of the mag box isn't flush with the receiver bottom sides and pushes the cartridge over too far and it won't sit against the rails properly. You really need to watch and remove as little metal as possible in very small increments as you can't easily put it back. Use the Dremel with extreme care. these are some of the basics to look for. Wish I could help more.-Rob

Thanks, Rob, that's a helpful start. It will have me going slow and with eyes open.

By the way, both CZ's were always 416Rigby's, from the factory, neither was a conversion.

416Tanzan,
To add to what Rob has written, regarding your CZ .416 Rigby feeding issues:

The CZ 550 Magnum comes with two basic sheet metal magazine boxes, marked on the box:

1. "375 H&H": Has internal vertical ribs, two on each side of box, stamped from the outside of the box, projecting inward,
reducing the effective width of box.

2. "458 WM": Has smooth sides, no ribs stamped into it, wider internal width of box.

Both boxes have an inside length of +3.8".
They are identical except for the stamping of the ribs and the caliber markings.

CZ strangely likes to use the ribbed 375 H&H box on .416 Rigby and even .505 Gibbs rifles.

The first 500 Mbogo was a rebarreled .416 Rigby CZ.
Just switching from the ribbed box to the smooth-sided/wider box slicked up the feeding of a 500 Mbogo, worked perfectly with GSC FN bullets.
The .416 Rigby is even easier to get feeding properly with FN solids.

Otherwise, before any major metal work, try that if you have a ribbed box.
Always polish all the feed surfaces slick, every edge and surface of box, follower, ramp, and rails must be smooth,
and be sure there are no burrs or excessive tighness of the extractor claw, as Rob said above,
and of course the follower spring must be adequate.

Another trick is getting a Dakota M76 African (.416 Rigby) follower to replace the CZ follower,
which mainly just moves the inital round feeding from the box to the left instead of from the right,
but there are some subtle other differences.

Those are my tricks.
All I have ever done besides that is one time I did a little filing of the feed rails, edges and undersides,
and grinding of the feed ramp to reshape a too-narrow U into a slightly wider, deeper trough.
It worked, but is a tedious procedure requiring close study and observation of what is going on as you work.
Mainly I recommend a qualified gunsmith.

416Tanzan- Yes buy some Craytex tips for your dremel tool in various fine grits and as RIP said once you have removed metal from the ramp, polish it very smooth. Factory guns often have sharp edges in places like the chamber mouths and Ramp edges that cause FN bullets to hang up. Just "breaking/rounding" those edges helps alot with FN's. Just watch and see where it hangs up and correct that by removing just a little metal at a time and I'm sure you can get it to work. Since its not a conversion, my guess is its just hitting some sharp edges ( side or bottom of ramp is my first guess) and if you remove them it will work. Rule of thumb is if this takes you more than 30 minutes you might want to consult a gunsmith.-Rob

Thank you both, RIP and Rob. We will follow up on this.

Yes, I would send to a gunsmith if in the US and it doesn't smooth up easily. TZ may be more tricky.

Tanzan,

Given that you have two identical rifles, one that feeds and one that does not, replace the bottom metal and mag parts one by one, until you have isolated the troublesome part. Then one can decide what to do without having to work on parts that may not need it.

zimbabwe,

quote:

I realized early on that it was not the best paying occupation available and unless your talent is exceptional success would be limited.

This is true. To make a decent living at gunsmithing, one needs to be good and very much in demand.

I have to sit back and "Admire" our gunsmiths. They are Artists in their own right! I have no talent in that area, and my guys normally confiscate any dangerous tools I might try to hide from them, as I can truly screw some things up quick when I decide to work on something! Thank God for folks Like Rob, like Brian at SSK, and many others out there. If it were not for folks like that I have no idea what I would do. I do my best not to work on too many things! My tools of choice are the following--BIG HAMMER--Vise Grips--Bastard File, and lot's of Duct Tape to hold things together that I have beat, ground, or broken off! Thank God for guys like Rob!

M

When I had my CZ in 375 H&H rechambered/rebarreled by Harlan's folks at Triple River (main gunsmith for the CZ Custom Shop) I knew it wasn't going to be easy. I sent it back to Triple River once and it was better but not right, I sent it AHR and it was better still but still not right, though I don't doubt if Wayne had built it from the start it would've been fine. I showed it to Kevin Weaver and in less than 2 minutes he showed me the problem. In a week he had machined a new magazine follower, smoothed out some of the earlier work and it's a thing of beauty. I am so fortunate to have Kevin be my gunsmith and the fact that's he less than 20 minutes away is just wonderful. I try and keep one gun at his place at all times lol ...

Lots of great advice and interesting posters as always on AR ...

Best Regards,

The pictures are of my CZ550 416Rigby follower. The rifle is otherwise box stock as far as metal work is concerned. It has had the barrel cut to 21" and the factory stock replaced with a Brockman laminate. Front ramp is a NECG Universal with a red fiber optic bead. This is an adjustable front sight for elevation and works perfectly. I write about it and show the followers as that was the only mod required to make it feed thelast round perfectly. WOODLEIGH round nose solids. Have never even seen a flat nosed solid in person. Took an elephant very effectively with this combination in Zimbabwe on my last safari. Must have just been lucky of course. Sorry I can't help you with the feeding problem and of course my reccomendation would be to use Woodleigh's they would probably feed right out of the box. Incidentally my box HAS the factory ribs.

Zimbabwe,
that's a very interesting picture and a big gouge taken out of that follower. what seems strange is that most of the original forward tip, just in front of the ramp to the chamber, appears to remain. why the severe left-ward opening, and then closing it back near the ramp?

Perhaps this was a way of compensating for the rails without touching the rails? If so, how wide are the rails at the middle and then as they squeeze toward the ramp?

PS: I think I saw this posted on another thread somewhere (was it on terminals?458-500 AccRel?) and it gave me the idea to at least smooth and dimish the ridge on the follower a little bit. I did a little hand-sanding without a dremel and things improved some. At least the follower got shiney and its sharp spine got ever so much as a bevel. (A pause and a finger touch and it would feed)

For my 500 Jeffery the follower indentation was just too narrow for that big fat case, so the cartridges were riding over the top of it. The Rigby is much more svelte so I'm assuming it doesn't have the same issue.

This done merely to allow the last round to feed smoothly. It permits the round to slide to theleft when it reaches this point therby pointing the tip in the proper direction for feeding. I was shown this mod by David Miller who knows a little about custom gunsmithing. I believe the last model 70's that he had a hand in developing had this mod on some of the followers. My CZ550 416Rigby fed perfectly except for the last round straight out of the box. Of course as I stated it was with Woodleigh Solids. I don't use flatnose bullets in my bigbores and in point of fact have actually never seen one in real life ,only pictures. I took a very nice Elephant with this rifle using a Woodleigh solid on my last safari in Zimbabwe. I have no doubt flatnose solids are good bullets and are probably desirable for use on Elephants but I personally believe that to be true on brain shots only where large amounts of bone are encountered and the target is especially small on a frontal shot and not too large on a side brain shot. For a heart lung shot I would ,again in my own mind and my own personal opinion, question the need or the efficacy. I have no doubt rifles can be made to feed these bullets but most all come from the factory with the ability to feed round nose solids effectively and reliabily. As I have said before I must be gifted with exceptional luck as I have very few of the problems so many on these forums seem to have with factory rifles,and i've owned and shot a bunch of them over the years. In all my hunting thru the years and my meagre 8 safaris to Africa I have managed to take most all my game with either Nosler Partitions or for solids Woodleigh's.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

The criticism from me was not so much that they went back to the round nose bullet because of feeding issues in cheap rifles. I realize most people who own big bores do so without any intention of hunting Africa. If they had just come out and said, "Due to feed issues in some rifles, Barnes has decided to modify the Banded Solid to the Round Nose Design", everything would have been fine from a reputation standpoint. The issue, at least for me, was that Barnes tried to tell us the reason for switching is that the Round Nose is more effective than the Flat Nose. When all empirical evidence exists to the contrary, this is simply nothing more than a lie. I just don't like being lied to, therefore my comments.

Todd:

I understand and agree with your comments above. There was no need for Barnes to be disingenuous in their response. This may have also been prompted buy their introduction of their own line of Vortex ammunition.

Not to beat this to death and you can take this for what it's worth but John Taylor thought that most solids went off course because they became distorted but not Rigby's copper clad steel jacketed solids which he felt were "the only perfect full-patch bullets in existence." He went on to state that a full-patch bullet should be "slightly less blunt than the printed letter U". It's as if he were describing todays Woodleigh solids or the Barnes round nose solids. I have a close friend who has hunted in Africa several times and he will not use homogenous solids because he believes they are much more likely to become distorted. I don't agree but I respect his view.

Almost 30 years ago, the Pontiac 6000, AMC Alliance, Volkswagen Rabbit and Mercedes Benz 380 SEL were voted amongst the top ten cars in the USA. No doubt that any one of those would still get you around very effectively and do the same job they did in 1983, but anyone who suggests that they are still the best in their respective categories cannot be taken seriously.

I met a man a while back who still types letters on a typewriter. He does not have electricity on a regular basis either. It does not prevent him from going about business as is usual for him, it is just not as efficient/effective as more modern equipment.

Advances are made in every walk of life but, I understand it when one clings doggedly to that which is familiar and understood. Especially when one does not even investigate the better mousetrap.

Until two years ago, this was my daily ride in the picture below. I had five of them, in a row, since 1984. I saw no need for something, that I was told, would do a better job. My '84/'87 Passat Wagon was all I needed. Then my daughter bought a newish model Audi, left for the USA a year or two later and I had to sell the Audi. That meant I had to drive it............

I had a rather well known friend and also an author who only used manual typewriters and when he heard they were going to be no longer made went out and bought several which were still in the original boxes when he died.This was so he would always have a spare in case his broke. My wife was a friend of his wife and once we were at dinner with them because his wife wanted to speak to my wife about word processors as my wife used them daily in her work. My wife was expounding on the attributes of the word processor when he asked what you did when the power failed as it did often in the monsoon season here at that time. He also asked how she would use it while camping or even on the patio. She had no real answers to this but she told him it was marvelous when you wanted to change something you had written and his answer to this was that if you thought carefully before you comitted the idea to paper you would not need to change it. This person was an attorney,an ex head of the US Border Patrol,an ex commissioner of the Immigration Service and the head of the NRA. He was also an accompolished cometition marksman and author. Was he correct in his ideas,you decide. I drive a 1993 Dodge Shadow and it is very good transportation and VERY economical on fuel. I also have a 2006 Mustang. So what difference does that make. Most of the rifles that are so highly touted on this Forum, especially Bolt rifles, are based on a design from 1898 and the 'experts' on this forum contend voluably and often that they cannot and have not been improved upon by such as the Winchester Model 70,Remington 700 or CZ550. Who is right? Who really cares? I really fail to see what your point is at all.

quote:

I really fail to see what your point is at all.

That puts it in a nutshell.

You know Zimbabwe, I don't do this often, but really




Michael

Dave

quote:

It's as if he were describing todays Woodleigh solids

There are vast differences in the nose profile of todays woodleighs--I don't know about yesterdays woodleighs, but there are huge differences in the 458s and 470s/510s, 9.3s and 358s are different from the bigger bores, don't have any 416s so not sure where they fall in. Both 470 and 510 are rounded pointy, the 458s come close to the "U" description, 9.3s and 358s almost have a tiny rounded flat on the nose, otherwise fairly U shaped. Not so with the 470 and 510s, also I do recall the .585s being more pointy round as well. The .620 is a big U shape type. I can't tell you why this is, but they are very different from caliber to caliber. The old barnes was a U as well, like you say.

The 470, 510, and .585 are the worst of the lot for terminals. 458 does the best of the big bores that I have worked with, strange things happen with 9.3, 320 is incredibly good, 286 is not. ????

Michael

Michael,

There is also a world of difference in terminals on elephants between the Woodleigh 458 dia. 500 and 550 grain bullets. The 500's are good the 550's are tremendous in my experience. Sectional Density or maybe weight?????

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Michael,

There is also a world of difference in terminals on elephants between the Woodleigh 458 dia. 500 and 550 grain bullets. The 500's are good the 550's are tremendous in my experience. Sectional Density or maybe weight?????

465H&H

465HH

As far as I can tell, just from sight, both bullets look the same on the nose to me. If there is a difference I can't see it. The nod would go to SD.

M

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Dave

[QUOTE]It's as if he were describing todays Woodleigh solids

There are vast differences in the nose profile of todays woodleighs--I don't know about yesterdays woodleighs, but there are huge differences in the 458s and 470s/510s, 9.3s and 358s are different from the bigger bores, don't have any 416s so not sure where they fall in. Both 470 and 510 are rounded pointy, the 458s come close to the "U" description, 9.3s and 358s almost have a tiny rounded flat on the nose, otherwise fairly U shaped. Not so with the 470 and 510s, also I do recall the .585s being more pointy round as well. The .620 is a big U shape type. I can't tell you why this is, but they are very different from caliber to caliber. The old barnes was a U as well, like you say.

The 470, 510, and .585 are the worst of the lot for terminals. 458 does the best of the big bores that I have worked with, strange things happen with 9.3, 320 is incredibly good, 286 is not. ????

Michael

Michael, not a problem with the 470. There you can just used a Barnes flat nose banded solid or a BBW#13 right? Feeding is not an issue. I have the 286 grain 9,3s, 410 grain .416s, 500 grain .474s s well as the 535 grain .510s Woodleighs solids. The ones that I have are all of the same design. Parallel sides, rounded nose with somewhat of a flat tip.

quote:

Michael, not a problem with the 470. There you can just used a Barnes flat nose banded solid or a BBW#13 right?

Well if you add North Fork to that--Then that is what I would choose regardless of caliber, cartridge or rifle period. I would not choose any RN myself.

My .510s are way more pointy than any of the rest, and perform accordingly.

M

Michael:

I am starting to get the impression that you don't like round nose solids

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
Michael:

I am starting to get the impression that you don't like round nose solids

Why Dave, "Whatever do you Mean?" Surely you would not think such a thing. I suppose I am rather transparent on some subjects.

(All that said in my deepest slowest "Southern Accent")

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
You know Zimbabwe, I don't do this often, but really




Michael

Michael, you can lead a man to logic, but you can't make him think!

Zimbabwe- I like your gouged follower design. When I first saw it I said to myself wow a damaged follower. Then I realized you did it intentionally. Sorry dude but YOU ain't working on any of my guns! Did you use a rock to scrape off that metal. If that's your standard for gunsmithing, you've erased all doubts in my mind. You have indeed qualified as a true Bozo! Congrats and I give up! You win! The BS has overwhelmed me!

I would like to thank all the members who have suffered thru my inept attempts to contribute to this forum, but I have finally realized with such superior intellects as Gerard,michael458 and Robgunbuilder writing with such knowledge,clarity and above all humility I have little to contribute. I shall probably continue to read some of the contributions as there are some truly wonderful ,talented people who contribute and some of the workmanship is stumnning but this will be the last time I shall write anything. I made this vow once before but succumbed to the temptation to believe something had changed,it has not so thanks and good bye.

Zimbabwe. We all can disagree. Some of the best threads are full of disagreements that lead to some real knowledge and learning. This thread is one of them. Better to be the hippo with thick skin than the osterich. I got some of the best insults and fun poked at me when I first came on this forum due to my wild ideas and enthusiasm without knowledge but have grown quite a bit from the discourse here. Best regards.

HEY ZIMBABWE -

Speaking of gouged and even double-divotted followers, this is from Bro' Lawndart in 2006, from the gunsmithing forum.
Making wiggle room for the tail of the last cartridge in the staggered stack as expedient factory feed job for RUM/404 Jeffery.
They gouge out the sides of the boxes also, "windowing" as an expedient for a wider box, RUM follower is wider too,
and uses a flatter spring as an expedient to deeper box:

quote:

Originally posted by lawndart:
Here are some pictures (duh):



A standard pot metal follower for a 30-06 class cartridge is on the left, a long magnum follower is in the center, and the RUM is on the right.



etc.



and so on.



It looks like your best bet may be to get a long magnum follower, and modify it slightly to RUM specifications.

LD

This should be interesting.

Michael:

I am going to experiment a bit and I will let you know the results. For my 500 Jeffery, I have Woodleigh solids and last night I discovered a couple of boxes of Barnes flat nose solids. I have to order some stuff from Midway today so, if they have them, I will order a box of box of Barnes round nose solids. I will let you know how they feed.