Just out of curiosity, what has happened to the 500/465? I have read many references to this cartridge over the years and I realized I haven't seen too many lately. Has the popularity of other cartridges sent it to the back burner?

375er

Mine is doing just fine in my gun safe. Unfortunately it uses a very rare bullet diam, so few bullets are nmade for it. It was a propritary crtridge of H%H so few other makers chambered for it. I have see a couple of european rifles and three Westley Richards in 500/465 chambeings. Clem Kotzee of Zim Parks fame used one a WR and it was his go to stopper for elephant. It was also John Taylors favorite.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 375er:
. . . what . . . happened to the 500/465?

The .470.

I think it's still doing well. As 465H&H said, it was a Holland house cartridge and as such was never a common round. I just sold my H&H 465 Royal at DSC and will miss it. The reason I sold it was I picked up a 500/450 Royal. The 500/450 is another Holland house cartridge and as uncommon as the 465. I would argue the 500/450 may be the best of the Nitro stopping rounds. It is lower pressure than the 450 3 1/4, bottlenecked design and has the best bullet selection of any of the Nitro stoppers.

I just finished John Kingsly-Heath's book on Dangerous game and he said he sold his 465 Holland Royal due to the fact that he found it's performance on game to be much less than that of his 470 and cites and example of a 465 bullet passing through a hunter's pelvis without doing any serious or lasting damage.
Just an interesting perspective from a highly experienced PH.

Yep,
the 500/465 suffered from odd bullet diameter (.466"), as well as too slow twist of 1:28".


Both of the 450 NE's,
the 3"1/4 thin-rim-Grandpapa-model-of-1898
and
No2 3"1/2 Eley
and
both of the 450/400 NE's (3" and 3"1/4)
and
500 NE 3"
all have twist of 1:15" by CIP spec.

These are the best, from my twisted perspective.

Then there are these:

500/416 NE 3"1/4: 1:16.5"
500/465 NE: 1:28"
470 NE: 1:21"
475 No2 NE 3"1/2: 1:18"
475 No2 NE 3"1/2 Jeffery: 1:18"
577 NE 3": 1:30"
600 NE 3": 1:30
700 H&H NE 3"1/2: 1:28.9" (a pipsqueak cartridge smaller than a 12GaFH)

LOL the twist wars keep returning like the crusades... Heathens of a slow twist must convert or face the inquisition

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Yep,
the 500/465 suffered from odd bullet diameter (.466"), as well as too slow twist of 1:28".


Both of the 450 NE's,
the 3"1/4 thin-rim-Grandpapa-model-of-1898
and
No2 3"1/2 Eley
and
both of the 450/400 NE's (3" and 3"1/4)
and
500 NE 3"
all have twist of 1:15" by CIP spec.

These are the best, from my twisted perspective.

Then there are these:

500/416 NE 3"1/4: 1:16.5"
500/465 NE: 1:28"
470 NE: 1:21"
475 No2 NE 3"1/2: 1:18"
475 No2 NE 3"1/2 Jeffery: 1:18"
577 NE 3": 1:30"
600 NE 3": 1:30
700 H&H NE 3"1/2: 1:28.9" (a pipsqueak cartridge smaller than a 12GaFH)

Must admire 470Evans taste

My own 500/450 has done good service for 24 years at this point.

Regards

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Yep,
the 500/465 suffered from odd bullet diameter (.466"), as well as too slow twist of 1:28".


Both of the 450 NE's,
the 3"1/4 thin-rim-Grandpapa-model-of-1898
and
No2 3"1/2 Eley
and
both of the 450/400 NE's (3" and 3"1/4)
and
500 NE 3"
all have twist of 1:15" by CIP spec.

These are the best, from my twisted perspective.

Then there are these:

500/416 NE 3"1/4: 1:16.5"
500/465 NE: 1:28"
470 NE: 1:21"
475 No2 NE 3"1/2: 1:18"
475 No2 NE 3"1/2 Jeffery: 1:18"
577 NE 3": 1:30"
600 NE 3": 1:30
700 H&H NE 3"1/2: 1:28.9" (a pipsqueak cartridge smaller than a 12GaFH)

RIP!

The 465 H&H uses bullets of .468 diameter not .466.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
I just finished John Kingsly-Heath's book on Dangerous game and he said he sold his 465 Holland Royal due to the fact that he found it's performance on game to be much less than that of his 470 and cites and example of a 465 bullet passing through a hunter's pelvis without doing any serious or lasting damage.
Just an interesting perspective from a highly experienced PH.

Phil!

Do you really think that a difference of .oo6 in bullet diameter and 20 grains weight will make that much difference?

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
I just finished John Kingsly-Heath's book on Dangerous game and he said he sold his 465 Holland Royal due to the fact that he found it's performance on game to be much less than that of his 470 and cites and example of a 465 bullet passing through a hunter's pelvis without doing any serious or lasting damage.
Just an interesting perspective from a highly experienced PH.

Phil!

Do you really think that a difference of .oo6 in bullet diameter and 20 grains weight will make that much difference?

465H&H

Never ceases to amaze how "tested on game" trumps basic math everyday at AR ...

I am lurking in the bushes, waiting for 465H&H to retire from DG hunting so I can buy his 465. I figure another ten to twelve years ought to do it!

Rich

PS:

I do not expect a DG bullet would find much in the human pelvic area to cause expansion. If what K-H said is true, then anything below the 470 in caliber is "insufficient" for the task as well. We all know how much water that bucket holds...
Of course, if it is full of excrement it won't hold any, most likely the real answer. After all, Selous said anything smaller that a 4bore would not perform reliably on Elephant.

465H&H,
Correct, my mistake, .468" not .466".
I hastily listed what COTW claimed for bullet diameter: .466"
instead of a more proper conversion of 11.89mm to inches to get what CIP lists: .468"

CIP adds a footnote "Check for safety reasons" regarding the projectile diameter.
Not surprising some variations might exist.

Adds credence to what CIP says about the twist rates, as listed in the post you so graciously quoted, eh?

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
I am lurking in the bushes, waiting for 465H&H to retire from DG hunting so I can buy his 465. I figure another ten to twelve years ought to do it!

Rich

Stalker ...

quote:

Originally posted by 375er:
. . . what . . . happened to the 500/465?



The .470.


MR

That's pretty much the truth!

quote:

Originally posted by Tim Carney:
Must admire 470Evans taste

My own 500/450 has done good service for 24 years at this point.

Regards

[IMG]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albu...landOpen-1.jpg[/IMG]

Tim,

Beautiful set......just don't let Obama know you have them

I wasn't commenting on whether or not the 465 is any good - just repeating what JKH claimed. His claim was based on it's performance on numerous elephants as compared with his 470 and the side note on it's performance on one human was simply another interesting story.

IF there is any actual performance issue between the 465 and the 470 and the 458 (which he liked) it has to be due to something like twist, bullet design and performance or worn rifling as the minimal difference in bore diameter would make no difference.

He said TWIST!


Maybe 1:21" twist is marginally adequate for the 470 NE
but
maybe 1:28" twist is inadequate for the 500/465?

Maybe he had .466" bullets for a .468" grooved barrel?

Maybe he used baking soda and vinegar in the 465 instead of powder....??

A quick look at the ballistics of the two cases shows the 465 whomping the 470's carcass by a WIIIIIDE margin. Might have something to do with the 465 being a modern design PLUS being based on the Norma produced 378 Weatherby case.

Who's building bolt guns in 465 H&H ...??

quote:

Originally posted by 375er:
Just out of curiosity, what has happened to the 500/465? I have read many references to this cartridge over the years and I realized I haven't seen too many lately. Has the popularity of other cartridges sent it to the back burner?

375er

No more so than the other proprietary cartridges in the .450 replacement group. The reason the .470 became more common than the others was because it was the only cartridge in the group that wasn't proprietary, not because of any perceived superiority.

I don't think we'll ever really know the .470's story entirely, because the records specific to it are gone. It was developed in 1899, probably by Webley & Scott - the earliest .470 to come to light was bought in from Webley by Rigby and sold in early 1900. The cartridge went nowhere until the problems in India 7 years later. If someone wanted more power than the .450s, the .500 and .577 Nitros were already available. British DR production was nearly at it's peak in those years, and other .470s built during those 7 years are nonexistent.

Then the crisis arising from the misinterpretation of the military cartridge ban (.303, 577/.450 MH, & .577 Snider) in India peaked in 1906, causing the design of the rest of the .470 group. Virtually all of the new .450 "replacements", mostly drawn by Eley, had been picked up as proprietary by various gunmakers by the time the drawings were finalized in February 1907 - .500/.465 (Holland), .475 (Cogswell & Harrison), .475 No. 2 (Eley), and .475 No. 2 Jeffery (Jeffery). The .476 Westley Richards came later, and was Westley's proprietary cartridge. That left everyone else with the only existing cartridge that was free to the trade - the .470.
----------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

500/465

470

470 #2

476 WR

465 H&H

400 Nitro Express, you need to write a book.

Or put more accurately, we need you to write a book.

I sincerely hope that you will do so. I would buy it now, on your pledge.

Why is it, do you think, that Joseph Lang is most often given credit for the .470?

Excellent idea.
I'll subscribe too.
I am guessing it may take more than one volume.

quote:

Why is it, do you think, that Joseph Lang is most often given credit for the .470?

MR:

I think that's the case because Lang claimed it in sales literature they published, which no one else seems to have ever contested. However, that was in 1907, not 1899/1900. Why?

The earliest known .500/.470 3 1/4" NE (the original name) was sold in March, 1900 by Rigby. Rigby's records show the rifle as having been bought in from Webley. Obviously, the design and development work had to have been completed sometime in 1899 in order to have a rifle ready "in the white" and finished by Rigby in time for that delivery date.

Whoever developed the .470 didn't have any luck selling it, and understandably so, but the .450 crisis in India represented a sea change in the 900 pound gorilla of British rifle markets, and an opportunity to re-release the .470. Joseph Lang was owned and operated by the Webley Brothers, T. W. and H. J., from 1898 to 1925, with H. J. Webley as Managing Director of Lang until his death in 1923, and T. W. Webley Managing Director of Webley & Scott. Webley was the gunmaker to the British trade. They stated in their own catalogue that 90% of the long guns they made ended up with another gunmaker's name on them. As such, retaining a cartridge of their own development as proprietary would have been contrary to their own interest and, to my knowledge, they had never done so. Lang was the opposite. The Webleys acquired Lang via massive payables to P. Webley & Sons (their company prior to the 1897 merger with Scott) for guns that Lang had bought in and sold. Webley development explains the non-proprietary status, Lang development does not. It also makes sense that the Webleys would have seen the circumstances of 1907 as an opportunity to boost their London O & O, and simply chose to re-release it through them.

Just mental rambling I've done over time, and I don't claim to have done all of the needed research - and the relevant Webley records don't survive. It's possible that it was Lang, but it seems unlikely to me.
---------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:
500/465

470

Boomer,
You obviously have some bad poop above!
Your 500/465 bullet is 11.86mm or .4669"
and your "470" bullet is 11.84mm or .4661"

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:
Maybe he used baking soda and vinegar in the 465 instead of powder....??

A quick look at the ballistics of the two cases shows the 465 whomping the 470's carcass by a WIIIIIDE margin. Might have something to do with the 465 being a modern design PLUS being based on the Norma produced 378 Weatherby case.

Who's building bolt guns in 465 H&H ...??

You do know that there are two cartridges sometimes called the 465H&H, right? One is the 500/465NE 3 1/4" which is a rimmed case for single shots and double rifles and is the 465H&H that 465H&H (the AR member) was referring too, the other is called the 465 H&H Magnum and is a belted cartridge recently unveiled by H&H.

465H&H (500/465) nominal ballistics = 480grs at 2150fps out of 28" barrels for 4930ft/lbs.

470 nominal ballistics = 500grs at 2125fps OUT OF 31" BARRELS for 5030ft/lbs.

In real life the 465H&H provided as much or more because the rifles in the field were closer in barrel length to the test barrel from equal length to four inches shorter, whereas the 470's in the feild had barrels from five to seven inches shorter.

JPK

Yep! But didn't know our guy had the older not newer device. Having a hard time understanding H&H's logic in making their new case designs when they don't offer much other than the H&H name.

Interesting how gunmakers of the late 19th century would have been concerned about proprietary cartridge designs given that guns of the era were mostly one-off blacksmith shop pieces with some being built at field locations. Wonder if this resulted from the prospect of cartridge case availability or ability to manufacture them...??

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:

...guns of the era were mostly one-off blacksmith shop pieces with some being built at field locations.

What "field locations" are you referring to?
-----------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by Tim Carney:
Must admire 470Evans taste

My own 500/450 has done good service for 24 years at this point.

Regards

Tim, I admire your good taste as well as photographic composition. Nicely done, sir!

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
... good taste as well as photographic composition. Nicely done,...

Rusty,

Thanks. It's from my two-part elephant hunting piece in The DGJ, Vol. XIII No. 4 and Vol. XIV No. 1.

I'm down for a copy of a 400Nitro book on the origins of modern nitroexpress rifles too.

Regards, Tim

might as well put me down for one as well.

Rich
Buff Killer

quote:

Originally posted by 400 Nitro Express:

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:

...guns of the era were mostly one-off blacksmith shop pieces with some being built at field locations.

What "field locations" are you referring to?
-----------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

India

I do have a hundred new Kynock cases if anyone needs them.

Rich
Buff Killer

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
I do have a hundred new Kynock cases if anyone needs them.

Rich
Buff Killer

You might want to keep them in case you talk me out of my 465. By the way, cash always talks!

465H&H

465 H&H,

your house is the second stop the day I win the lottery! But I would love to take another look at it.

Rich
Buff Killer

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:

quote:

Originally posted by 400 Nitro Express:

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:

...guns of the era were mostly one-off blacksmith shop pieces with some being built at field locations.

What "field locations" are you referring to?
-----------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

India

No, none were built in India. The double rifles retailed there were built in England, although a few did come from Europe.

quote:

Interesting how gunmakers of the late 19th century would have been concerned about proprietary cartridge designs given that guns of the era were mostly one-off blacksmith shop pieces

That isn't true either.
--------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burn gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
I wasn't commenting on whether or not the 465 is any good - just repeating what JKH claimed. His claim was based on it's performance on numerous elephants as compared with his 470 and the side note on it's performance on one human was simply another interesting story.

IF there is any actual performance issue between the 465 and the 470 and the 458 (which he liked) it has to be due to something like twist, bullet design and performance or worn rifling as the minimal difference in bore diameter would make no difference.

I believe JKH hunted mostly right after WWII. When Kynoch resumed sporting rifle ammunition manufacturing they tried using steel jackets in their solids. They had problems with some batches of bullets breaking up as the steel they used was too brittle. Elmer Keith reported some of his Kynoch 500 Nitro Express solids breaking up on hippo heads and I believe buffalo on his safari to the Kagera River in Tanz. Other also reported similar problems with some calibers and some batches of ammo. JKH would have been right to abandon his 465 H&H if this was the only ammo available to him. John Taylor went the opposite direction in that he abandoned the 470 for a 465 because he believed that the 470 bullets were too pointed and sometimes failed to travel straight on frontal brain shots on elephants. but then he hunted primarily before WWII and lost his 465 as well as his beloved 450/400 when they were sold off by the person he left them with when he went off to war. So he never used the the problem Kynoch ammo. I suspect he would also have abandoned his 465 if he could only get bad ammo.

I have shot elephants with both the 465 Nitro Express and with the 470 Nitro Express and can see no observable difference between them in penetration or knock down power.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
He said TWIST!


Maybe 1:21" twist is marginally adequate for the 470 NE
but
maybe 1:28" twist is inadequate for the 500/465?

Maybe he had .466" bullets for a .468" grooved barrel?

I can see no plausable reason for having a 1:28" twist in the 465 and 1:21 in the 470.
My 465 is of German manufacture and has a 1:18" twist as does my Searcy 470. I also can't believe that a Company with the reputation of H&H would use a twist rate that would not stabilize bullets in any of their rifles. H&H is has always been anal in regards to the design of their rifles and cartridges. I wonder if the standard listed as 1:28" is a typographical error. Does anyone know what the twist rate is on the new 465 H&H Belted Rimless Magnum cartridge. Or does anyone have an original 465 H&H Nitro and can measure its twist rate?

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 400 Nitro Express:

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:

quote:

Originally posted by 400 Nitro Express:

quote:

Originally posted by Macifej:

...guns of the era were mostly one-off blacksmith shop pieces with some being built at field locations.

What "field locations" are you referring to?
-----------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

India

No, none were built in India. The double rifles retailed there were built in England, although a few did come from Europe.

quote:

Interesting how gunmakers of the late 19th century would have been concerned about proprietary cartridge designs given that guns of the era were mostly one-off blacksmith shop pieces

That isn't true either.
--------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burn gunpowder."

So you're saying no rifles were built in India ...?? What's not true..?? They weren't concerned about proprietary cartridge designs..?? Or rifles were serially produced and not one off pieces..?? They weren't made by glorified blacksmiths ...??

IIRC, a large percentage of the doubles built were actually made by the Birmingham gunmakers,
and made for the London trade with their names on them. IIRC, the "seconds" quite often were sold under the A&N label to those unable to afford the tariff of the best grades, etc.

Rich
Buff Killer