quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

My only gripe with Swift A-Frames is the undeniable fact that the bases upset and bulge
Somehow Noslers are not prone to this, and there is no way it could happen to a North Fork or a GSC with their solid copper bases.

I have a 400 grain Noler Partion fired from a 416 Rigby that the jacket bulged behind the partion and ruptured on one side and the lead core flowed forward and is .170 below the jacket at the base.........

I thought the Nosler Partitions simply shed their rear cores completely, deflated, and did not bulge.

In summary, all of this is why I would go with a North Fork or a GSC HV if I wanted a soft for Big Bear or any BIG GAME. Simply the two best of the best.

I see some varying opinions the shape of a bullet when expanded and the stopping /damage potential of that bullet. Some opine that the swift A-Frame is “ice cream cone smooth†making it inferior to the Woodleigh. And that the Barnes is a worthless POS.

Please notice exhibit "A" below showing a fully expanded 500gr Woodleigh next to a 500 Woodleigh solid. Both of which were recovered from a Tanzanian buffalo and were fired from a .458Lott @ about 75 yards.

The WoodLeigh looks just about the twin to the pictures of the SAF we’ve seen. Otherwise known as “ice cream cone smooth†I fail to see the superiority of the cutting edges in the Woodleigh vs. the SAF.

And in keeping with the original theory of ragged edges being more effective. Take a look at the 500gr X, a .470 bullet also recovered from a buffalo. You be the judge. All things aside the Barnes looks more “jagged†edged to me, how about you?

Note that the round nose solids were recovered from critters as small as cape buffalo. They tumble quickly in cape buffalo, just like they do in the "Iron Buffalo."

Need a GSC FN or North Fork FP for any "solid work."

BTW, this round and smooth hooey is due to finding the bullets up against the off side hide after no major bone strikes.

Even a Swift A-Frame will be jagged and irregular after breaking through a a cape buffalo or bison humerus.

Yes this "ice cream cone smooth" hooey is not humerus.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RIP:
Note that the round nose solids were recovered from critters as small as cape buffalo. They tumble quickly in cape buffalo, just like they do in the "Iron Buffalo."

Need a GSC FN or North Fork FP for any "solid work."

NFs work great but the rest of the above is pure



465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Note that the round nose solids were recovered from critters as small as cape buffalo. They tumble quickly in cape buffalo, just like they do in the "Iron Buffalo."

Need a GSC FN or North Fork FP for any "solid work."

BTW, this round and smooth hooey is due to finding the bullets up against the off side hide after no major bone strikes.

Even a Swift A-Frame will be jagged and irregular after breaking through a a cape buffalo or bison humerus.

Yes this "ice cream cone smooth" hooey is not humerus.

The truth hurts, eh?

Highjack off.

Best Brown Bear Bullet of .375 caliber: North Fork Soft 300-grainer

Rip!

I assume you were directing your last comment at me if not then I appologise in advance. As I said, I have a lot of respect for the NF solids and softs. The softs are right up there with other premium bullets such as Nosler, Woodleigh, Swift, Barnes TSX etc. With solids is where we disagree. I do not disagree that the NF solid is a great bullet. Where I do disagree is where you say it "You need a NF or GS solid for solid work". I can guarantee you that Woodleigh RN solids work just fine on elephant and Cape Buffalo.

I have taken several hands full of elephant and several more hands full of Cape buffalo with the Woodleigh soilds or the old Hornady RN steel jacketed solid. I have never and I repeat NEVER seen any sign of tumbling or anything but straight line penetration when using either. Just how many elephants and buffalo have you taken with RN steel jacketed solids? How many tumbled and how many drifted off course? I must admit if I ever hunt a buffalo or elephant made out of plywood and water I will be sure to follow your advise. Until then give us some examples of problems you have had with RN solids on DG game.


465H&H

Dear 465H&H,
surestrike has shown us a bent Barnes Smurf-coated solid, a round nose. It may be only slightly bent, but it is bent, and that is witness to why it was recovered from a cape buffalo rather than passing on through. It was bent in tumbling.

It is really unnecessary to dally on this subject. There are so many examples, one was already at hand.

You have not looked very hard if you did not find the elliptical bases or bent shanks in all your elephant killing round nose solids.

No I do not have the experience you do with the big stuff. But many others do and they say the FN is much more reliable.

Sure a round nose is good for about two feet of penetration in game before it starts cartwheeling, and that is usually good enough to get within a chance of tumbling into some vitals, to take a swipe at it.

The roundnose may be a better penetrator in plywood or bone than an FN because of the lower drag of the nose shape and the hard medium on the sides of the bullet tending to help the wobbly roundnose stay on course.

The shoulder stabilization and better supercavitation of the FN through a variety of tissues gives it the edge to overcome its drag disadvantage.

A .510/570-grain GSC FN at 2400 fps will pass through 8 feet of bison from rump to throat, repeatably exiting. I've done that. I would laugh if anyone thought a round nose solid could do that.


A .416/380-grain FN at 2500 fps will zip right through the humerus of a cape buffalo, wreck the vitals and depart out the offside shoulder at escape velocity. I've done that too. One shot, one kill, the way we like it.

When I do get a chance at an elephant, I would never want to play the round nose roulette game.

You are one very lucky fellow.

I wonder why Barnes has done such a poor job in imitating the GSC FN? At least the round nose Smurf solid is gone by the wayside.

I know why North Fork has done such a good job in re-inventing the GSC FN.

Oh geez! We are highjacking the thread again.

But them smurf bullet sure are purtty, ain't they?

I should think that the new flat nosed banded Barnes solid would be up to snuff with the best of them. Why wouldn't it be?

RIP!

Your right we have been high jacking this thread. But since we started, I agree with you on the Barnes RN mono-metal solids in that they show bending indicating tumbling. Ganyana has showed pictures of the same performance. I suspect that they are made of a soft mono-metal. But if you look at the pictures 500grains has posted of NF and GS FN solids recovered from elephant you will see that somewhere around 30 to 50% show bending a little way behind the nose and that indicates that those bullets also tumbled. Only the Bridger FN solids didn't show any bending. I have recovered two Woodleigh solids from elephant that showed some flattening of the base (out of 16) but in one case the bullet penetrated at least 48" of elephant head and in the other it penetrated from behind the right shoulder angling forward through the top of the heart and lungs then through the left humerus and was found under the hide on the opposite shoulder. This was a 470 solid at 85-90 yards. I believe it probably tumbled when it hit the off side humerus. I also believe any solid will probably tumble on that same shot. Although I have never used a FN mono-metal myself I concur that it "appears" that the FN mono-metal penetrates deeper on soft tissue but as 500 grains has shown the RN steel jacketed Woodleigh penetrated as much if not further than the FN solids he tested on elephant heads.

465H&H

Having looked at the heart and lungs of many buffalo shot with with a lot of different type of bullets. many of those being with Swift and Woodleighs, and being a confirmed bullet digger, I am sure in my mind that the smoothness of a bullet makes a difference in tissue damage. The Swift balls up on contact and the base puffs up behind it, and that is akin to a muzzle loader ball IMO...

The Woodleigh flares out at the cuts, buzz saws through the tissue and on ocassion folds back is the impression I get. The Woodleigh seems to fold back smooth at longer distances after the velocity has waned to one degree or another is my opine..The swift expands fully immediately after contact and the tissue damage is less that a Woodleigh. The Woodleigh will get complete penetration about 70% of the time on buffalo, and the swifts always stop on the off side. This is what I base my opine on. I don't see how that could be hooey, its apparant just by observation IMO.

However if someone has a different opine, then that's fine as I ralize that it is a controversial subject, and based on many different views.

I only suggest that basing an opinion on the killing of one or two animals is not an accurate way to come to a proper decision.

that said, I know a Swift will kill a Buffalo or whatever, a solid will do the same thing with a properly placed shot, and proper placement of a bullet is the ultimate route to a quick and humane kill.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
Having looked at the heart and lungs of many buffalo shot with with a lot of different type of bullets. many of those being with Swift and Woodleighs, and being a confirmed bullet digger, I am sure in my mind that the smoothness of a bullet makes a difference in tissue damage. The Swift balls up on contact and the base puffs up behind it, and that is akin to a muzzle loader ball IMO...

..The swift expands fully immediately after contact and the tissue damage is less that a Woodleigh.

The Woodleigh will get complete penetration about 70% of the time on buffalo, and the swifts always stop on the off side. This is what I base my opine on. I don't see how that could be hooey, its apparant just by observation IMO.

I call it hooey because you have just made "matter of fact" and sweeping statements that are not true. They may be true in your experience, but that doesn't not make them fact as you have represented it.

In my experience, they do NOT "always ball up on impact". Do these really look "balled up" and "akin to a muzzle loader ball"????







Or how about these ones from a .375 H&H that I recovered from a bison I shot (shot distance about 200 yards)...



Comparing any of these bullets to muzzleloader balls is just freakin silly IMHO.

Sure the base section swells and supports the folding "petals" or "mushroom cap" as it expands, but how does that make it penetrate or cause damage any less than the solid shank of the North Fork or a Woodleigh for that matter?

In my experience, they do NOT "always stop on the off side" either. I will bet a months pay, that more than 60% of the A-frames that I have shot at game have fully penetrated and exited. You are looking at all but two of the bullets that have not fully penetrated game I have shot. One was not recovered (a neck/spine shot on a cape buffalo). I had pass throughs (broadside shots) on two other cape buffalo, and have had pass throughs on kudu, eland, zebra, gemsbok, elk, bison, black bears, deer, mt goat, sheep, etc, etc.

To say that they "always" end up on the hide on the other side is a huge exaggeration and a gross misrepresentation of fact (not your experience possibly, but fact as my evidence clearly proves). Just based on our samples (your very general comments and my specific examples plus general anecdotal comments), the facts are obviously AT LEAST somewhere in between our experiences.

Your comment about them expanding fully immediately on contact is also not necessarily a fact. There is no way for you to know for sure that happens...you have surmised it from fully expanded recovered bullets. The pictures I have posted of the bullets recovered from the impala and the bison clearly provide evidence to the contrary.

In fact, the bullets recovered from the bison also seem to refute RIPs theory that the bullets expand in the bore of the rifle. I had pressure problems with that exact box of factory ammo later and flat primers on the cartridges those bullets came from (although I didn't notice it at the time). It does not look at all like it was bullet expansion that caused the pressure spikes, but maybe it is just less than one can eyeball.

Anyhoo, this is also JMHO based on my field experience and careful observation as another confirmed bullet digger over some 10 to 12 years or so of using these bullets. No offence intended, just debating the facts.

Canuck

Canuck,

Of course what I am talking about with pressure spikes with Swift A-Frames, would not be visible to the naked eye! This would only be related to upset-obturation and more complete sealing of the bore with a greater friction generation by the soft, pure copper of the Swift. It is not a visible thing, it is a bore friction thing.

It is no problem at all as long as I settle for about 100 fps less MV than I can get with other Premium bullets, and that is NO PROBLEM AT ALL!

SWIFT A-FRAMES ARE EXCELLENT: Ice Cream cones are hooey!

Swift A-Frames were my first choice for hunting Kodiak in 1986. They are better now than they were then, accuracy wise.

quote:

Of course what I am talking about with pressure spikes with Swift A-Frames, would not be visible to the naked eye! This would only be related to upset-obturation and more complete sealing of the bore with a greater friction generation by the soft, pure copper of the Swift. It is not a visible thing, it is a bore friction thing.

Hey RIP,

In case you were wondering, by eyeballing, I did mean a very close visible inspection (not just a hard look at that blurry old picture. ). I checked those bullets over closely last night just to see if I could see any difference in the lands/grooves of the section forward of the partition versus the section behind that bulges during bullet expansion. I couldn't see anything at all.

Doesn't prove anything, I know, but I thought something might show up.

Is your "expansion in bore" theory entirely your own? It could have merit for sure.

Cheers,
Canuck

Canuck,
I can't remember if it is my own idea or someone else's I picked up here at AR.com over the last 7 years of peeping and participation.

Also I forgot to mention that the Swifts tend to have long bearing surfaces too.

The way they bulge their bases on impact, if any bullet obturates the bore completely, it surely must be a Swift A-Frame.

1. Easily deformed, "bulgey" base.
2. Soft, pure copper jacket material bonded to soft, pure lead.
3. Full-contact, long bearing surface.

1 + 2 + 3 = possible lower velocity for same max pressure, but only about 100 fps slower than slicker bullets.

Not a bad thing, just something to be aware of.

SWIFT A-Frame!!!

Sorry if I sounded mater of fact, I thought I stated that it was a conclusion that I came to based on my experiences. I am sure I did, but if you took it otherwise then I amend it to the fact that I base all my opinnions on my own personal experiences and interpetations thereof...

I also allow others to do the same, it makes a good horse race.

Just want to say you have gone through alot of trouble/expense and have made a very impressive site!Bravo! www.470mbogo.com

quote:

Originally posted by 470 Mbogo:
Dan
The funny thing is the bullet on their homepage looks as smooth as an A-Frame.
Dave