Does anyone have feedback on the new Hornady round/flat nosed style of soft and solid bullets. The price is attractive for practicing, but how do they (.375 and up) perform on Buffalo, Elephant, Water Buffalo, and such?

How do the compare to the newer Woodleighs?

Thanks for you input on these questions.

LD

A PH I was with in Zim in Oct this year said he had seen them being tested on heavy game-he only voiced an opinion on the solids.I think it went roughly "complete POS,will get you killed real quick with buf or elephant"or words to that effect

lawndart

Both the new Hornady SP and Solids do not measure up at all. The PH in Zim would be correct. While I have not (and would not after my test work)used these on animal tissue, they fail miserably in my test box, wet print. The soft points break in half, the solids will not track in a straight line, penetration is poor. I have been working with the 480 gr 458 caliber bullets in both 458 B&M and 458 Lott. I have not worked with other calibers.

By far the better choices are Swift, Woodleigh, Northfork, Barnes TSX, for soft points, Barnes Banded FN for solids.

The Hornady bullets are accurate and would make perfect practice bullets. It is a shame terminal performance is not up to standards for these, I had very high hopes for them and I am a great fan of Hornady, it just seems these come up a bit short in the terminal performance arena.

Michael

Guys, are you talking about the new DGS and DGX steel jacketed bullets here?

I have heard nothing but positive reports on these.

A good friend used the Hornady DGS solid to take two buffalo this year (400 grain .450/.400). Perfect performance. Six rounds fired, all exited.

The Boddingtons used it on two safaris this year, also in .450/.400. Two elephant with the solid, plus one buffalo with the DGX soft. Reported good performance from both.

I believe the "new" Hornady solids being used in Africa are the "old" (2 years) Interbond solids using brass jackets.
The new - as in this year - DGX solids and softs with steel jackets are going to become quite highly thought of after a few real trials.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
I believe the "new" Hornady solids being used in Africa are the "old" (2 years) Interbond solids using brass jackets.
The new - as in this year - DGX solids and softs with steel jackets are going to become quite highly thought of after a few real trials.

No. Actually the solids being used by Bodington, Ivan Carter, et al, are the new new steel jacketd sorta flat nose solids and they are working just fine.

The softs still suck, this from a Zim Ph who watched them come apart on buff his clients shot.

The reports of round nose or the sorta flat nose Hornadays not traveling straight is just BS. Wet pack isn't animal flesh or elephant heads and wet pack produces results significantly different that those in the real thing. The medium is widely discredited and so called test results ought to be ignored.

Ivan Carter posted (here, in African Hunting) about a month ago that his results shooting the new steel jacket flat nose-ish Harnaday solids, in .458" has been just fine on buff and eles. This tracks with other first hand reports from Zim PH's I've asked.

Off topic, but I used 500gr .458" Woodleighs on six elephants just a month or six weeks ago, and all worked as expected, which is to say perfectly.

JPK

I meant that some of the previous reports of "new Hornady bullets" were referring to the older brass jacketed ones. I know Craig and others are now using the steel jacketed DGX bullets

Thank you all very much for the input.

It caught my attention (in a bad way) when I saw that 50 of the pills could be had for significantly less than $30.00. Thank you for the help.

Excelent for deer, piggies, etc. I'll check back in in one year and see what people say when more reports return.

LD

JPK
Not going there with you again. Waste of my time. I don't care who you are, I don't care if you have shot 100s of elephants with round nose fmj--I make no comparison to medium and animal flesh in my test so that is totally irrelevant. Although I do have bullet after bullet that can be correlated to animal flesh, but I will not argue that with you, again a waste as you do not have experience with both medium and animal flesh.

If all else is equal when one bullet performs better than another in a consistent medium that does have some bearing to the end purpose of said projectile, it stands to reason that the bullet that has performed the best in test medium will also perform best in the field. This is not always 100% true (I have yet to be proven wrong in my direct comparisons) and it does NOT MEAN THE OTHER BULLET WILL NOT PERFORM for the purpose intended. To discount any test work is to remain ignorant. Every single bullet I have ever tested in my medium performed exactly the same in animal flesh! If it performed well in the medium it performed well on animal flesh--If it failed in my medium, then it also failed on animal flesh. While I am referring to most of these bullets have been expanding bullets, I can assure you that the solids I have tested that performed extremely well in the test medium--Also did the exact same in animal flesh, whether frontal brain shots on elephants, side brain shots on elephants, shoulder shots on elephants, even rear shots on elephants, or broadside, rear, or frontal shots on buffalo. I also have experiences where round nose solids did the job on all these same shots, although I know for a fact on body shots of these same animals the round nose bullets did not penetrate as deep.

When we get to SOLIDS--FMJ or true solids--Round Nose or Flat Nose we do enter an entirely different dynamic of performance. While both round nose and flat nose perform differently in any medium, both are very much subject to the many hundreds of variables that can be, will be encountered in the field. Both round nose, or fmj round nose will very much most of the time do the job in the field, as your experience in the field with these can attest to (I have yet to say they would not do the job as intended-now or before in our previous discussions on this same exact matter) They will do so, I too have shot elephants with round nose solids, I too have tested these same bullets in test medium. What I am saying is that some solid projectiles drive straighter, deeper, and far more consistent than others in any medium. The question is how much is enough? While in my test work the round nose solids come up far short of the flat nose solids, it is still enough to do the job in the field, on elephants or other large thick skinned animals. I know this, I have been there done that on elephant, hippo, and buffalo many times, along with shooting lot's of these same bullets the test medium.

It is a fact that some test medium is better than others. I discredit however very little information that can be found in any test medium. To do so is to limit ones knowledge and education, and therefore to remain ignorant or illiterate by ones own choice is beyond my understanding. Anyone who chooses to do test work is doing so as a way to measure differences in performance in a controlled environment. For me I happen to think that shooting wood blocks or dirt has little bearing---EXCEPT to compare and measure. Different mediums gives us insight into variables that can be encountered in the field. For instance I have tested trying to get a bullet to drive through 1/2 inch wooden dowels to test deflection of different bullets, should one encounter brush in the field! Is it not possible that one can encounter brush in the field? Is this test work also invalid?

I welcome very much your vast vault of knowledge and field experience with the fmj round nose solids. It is but another avenue that I can learn from. If I had no field experience and only lab work and test work it would be even more valuable. However I have both. Between your experience and my field experience along with the test work I can determine that while the round nose solids do not perform in the lab nearly as well as a solid with a large flat meplat, that the performance in the field of the round nose is "adequate", and that the performance of the flat nose solids is far more than adequate, driving deeper, and straighter to the end, as I have experience in the lab and the field with both type of projectiles. The work is not widely discredited as you say, and is valued as a way to measure performance in a controlled environment, to discredit regardless of medium, is to remain ignorant. I learn from all mediums, on the shooting range or in the field, I will not be ignorant if given an opportunity to learn from all avenues, it is a choice to be made by all. I think you have made your choice too! Big difference between you and I is that I do not discredit your work, in fact I value it as I can add it to my own experiences. Too bad about you!


Michael

Back to the matter at hand. I tested the 458 480 gr Hornady Dangerous game bullets, and for both the soft and solids I had high expectations. I found the soft to react exactly the same as the former 458 Interbond, which broke off the front portion of the bullet, about 1/3 of the bullet disintegrating leaving the remaining slug that did penetrate deep. The solid fell short on performance compared to the Barnes Banded. However, let me inject that although it was short on performance compared to the Barnes, it is still good enough to perform well in the field, as is most any solid in a proper twist barrel.

Now as far as other calibers in the new dangerous game lineup I have not tested. However in recent years I have worked with the 416 caliber 400 gr Interbond and FMJ encapsulated Hornady. After my experience with the 458 interbonds, I expected the same from the 416 Interbonds---not true. In fact the 416 400 Interbond performed extremely well, giving great expansion and holding together with no shearing, no great loss of weight and good penetration. Very much on par with the Woodleighs I have worked with in this caliber. In addition I was pleased with the 400 gr FMJ Encapsulated solid too. At the time I only had a 48 inch box to do test work in, and in all cases this bullet drove completely through, giving great penetration and performance. At the time I was testing these bullets it was straight wet print, with no magazines injected. The magazines do make for a tougher mix by 30-35%. Regardless of that I would not hesitate to use either of these bullets in the field. As to why the 416s performed so much better than the 458s I cannot say. I do have scheduled test work with these again in the next two weeks at both low velocity around 2100 fps up to 2400 fps in both 416 B&M and 416 Remington. In addition I am retesting the 480 Hornady solids in 458 Lott at both higher and lower velocities, along with 500 gr Woodleighs, Barnes and others.

I see where someone mentioned the 450/400, I have also seen this, and have no doubt that with dead critters on the ground performance was good, especially at the velocities these bullet run. I am not much of a fan of high velocity in big bore rifles. Thus my tests with lower and higher velocities with the same bullet.

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
I meant that some of the previous reports of "new Hornady bullets" were referring to the older brass jacketed ones. I know Craig and others are now using the steel jacketed DGX bullets

OOPS, I got confused with the new or new new, or newer or... I now understand that you were referring to the brass encapsulated failures.

How does this work for clarity?

The old steel jacketed round nose solids earned a good reputation. The old new brass encapsulated round nose "solids" earned a very poor reputation. The newest new flatish nose steel jacketed solids seem well on their way to earning a fine reputation.

Does this make sense?

JPK

I having trouble keeping us with which ones are the "new" Hornadys. I can say that I received a very harsh report on the poor performance of the ones they were testing in Zim in 2007 from someone who was involved in the testing.

Michael458,

You do make a direct comarrisson between your discredited test medium and real life experience in game. Read your own post below, where you second the report on solid failure from a Zim PH, based on your non-comparable test medium results. In fact, you specifically refer to and rely on your test medium, known to give results that are diametrically opposed to real life results, and specifically draw a false conclusion based on your non comparable test results, all while boldly acknowledging that you haven't used the bullets on buff or elephant, the only medium that counts.

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
lawndart

Both the new Hornady SP and Solids do not measure up at all. The PH in Zim would be correct. While I have not (and would not after my test work)used these on animal tissue, they fail miserably in my test box, wet print. The soft points break in half, the solids will not track in a straight line, penetration is poor. I have been working with the 480 gr 458 caliber bullets in both 458 B&M and 458 Lott. I have not worked with other calibers.

By far the better choices are Swift, Woodleigh, Northfork, Barnes TSX, for soft points, Barnes Banded FN for solids.

The Hornady bullets are accurate and would make perfect practice bullets. It is a shame terminal performance is not up to standards for these, I had very high hopes for them and I am a great fan of Hornady, it just seems these come up a bit short in the terminal performance arena.

Michael

I have never had a round nose solid veer. I have had two flat nose solids veer. I have shot about an equal number into buff and elephants. Maybe sixty each now. Flat nose solids penetrate deeper, when they penetrate straight. Round nose solids penetrate enough.

Since having a flat nose veer in May, the second event, I now load a round nose Woodleigh for the first shot, which will be a brain shot, and a flat nose North Fork for the second shot, which will be either an insurance shot on a dead elephant or a body shot after a blown brain shot, and so a shot which may need all the penetration that can be mustered.

When I run out of Woodleigh solids, I'll be switching to the 500gr Hornadays.

Nothing wrong with being an advocate of a bullet, or its design, but it just makes no sense to be an advocate of a test medium which continues to produce results contrary to reality.

JPK

Michael458,do you think 500gr FMJ solids are good for lung shots on buff?

shootaway

I much prefer a soft for lung shots, or first shots on buffalo, followed by solids. I would certainly use a solid on the first shot without much issue as long as the far side was clear. I would prefer that solid to have a nice wide meplat to do as much damage as possible, and without doubt hits harder up front. With what I would consider the perfect choice would be one of the tough constructed expanding bullets, Swift, barnes X, Woodleigh, Northfork up front, backed by a Barnes Banded FN Solid.
Michael

quote:

I found the soft to react exactly the same as the former 458 Interbond, which broke off the front portion of the bullet, about 1/3 of the bullet disintegrating leaving the remaining slug that did penetrate deep.

That's not bad IMHO

JPK
The medium in not discredited--nor credited. Yes, I absolutely make comparisons between the medium and animal tissue. Until you have some credibility with both issues how is it possible you can have a comment at all?

With all expanding bullets I get the same results in the test medium compared with animal tissue. I have hundreds of bullets tested in my test medium and hundreds of bullets dug from animal flesh. As for comparison they are the same, one has dried paper stuck to it, the other has blood and tissue stuck to it, no other difference unless heavy bone was contacted. In terms of penetration I find the wet print medium is far more dense than animal tissue and that bullets will penetrate animal tissue deeper from 80% to 100% deeper than the wet print mix. I also find that expanding bullets that do well in the mix will do well in animal tissue. If it fails or breaks up in the wet print, then it will react the same in animal tissue. These methods are comparable, but not in the sense you consider it. Are they perfect? Of course not, it is a way to learn, it is a way to measure. Other mediums can produce the same, such as ballistic gel, water blocks, wood inserts and many other types of medium. I use wet print/magazine mix because I have nearly 15 yrs of experience and data with it. If I use something else at this point then it is not comparable to the data I have collected over the years, and therefore I would have to start over. I have far too much work done to do that now. I think most of the test mediums used for projectiles of any sort need to stress the bullet to a point. I think dirt and rocks are far too much stress, as is shooting heavy thick blocks of wood. I think ballistic gel may be too easy on bullets giving them a free ride. Some greats like Ross Sefreid, Finn Aagaard, and Jack Carter were great advocates of testing in either wet print or dry at times. Finn would sometimes use dry to stress the bullets even more. They made direct comparisons to their test work on live animals. In fact the work that Finn and Jack Carter did lead to the Trophy Bonded bullets. I have never in my lifetime heard of their work being discredited by any knowledgeable shooter! Do you also discredit their work? You would have to do so based upon your comments. I do not, in fact it was some of the best work done, and was a great part of getting some of the bullets we have today.

I have told you, solids produce a completely different dynamic, that all of us are just at the doorstep of beginning to learn about! No one has all the answers yet. Certainly not me, and without any doubt not you. But we do strive to get there.

While my test work here at home is not limited, my test work in the field is. I can test 10 different bullets here on the range and be economically sound. I cannot take those same 10 different bullets to the field to test on 10 different elephants, and then when 10 more new bullets come out, go test on 10 more elephants! Sorry, but in the real world in which I live I have to pick the best of the 10 and then go try it! If it is successful in the test medium, and then it proves successful in the field then I am pretty much set to go! If a new one comes along, then I am going to test it too first in the test medium and guess what? I am going to compare it to the last successful bullet that I used in the test medium and then in the field! YES----I AM GOING TO COMPARE THEM. How else can one learn, in a reasonable, economical way? Test first--then take it to the field. Be smart by comparing the two test mediums, and document results thereof, and be able to go back to the data in the future! By no stretch am I trying to say the two mediums--any medium is 100% comparable to animal flesh and bone. Do you understand? I am not sure I can explain this to you in any more simple terms.

Not the same---but very easy to compare, very easy to measure between and collect data. If you cannot grasp the good coming from any test work then I have to write you off as a fool and I am totally not sure why you would refuse to learn from such work, regardless thereof.

I can certainly learn from your field observations! Example---lets just say for a second that I am a lab rat! We will pretend I have zero field experience, never been there done that. However, I am a great lab rat, so I shoot, gather data and document everything (I am a pretty good lab rat for real). So now I draw conclusions that round nose solids will always veer off course during penetration, because that is what they do in all test mediums used in the lab--therefore they must do so in the field. But I don't know this to be a fact! So here comes along JPK--shot at least 10'000 elephants with round nose bullets and all 10'000 down on the spot? Well does that mean that my test work is all for nothing? Does that mean that other bullets won't work? What does that mean exactly? What it means is that while the round nose fmj bullets will veer, will break at times, will bend, will sometimes fail in both the medium and in the field, that most of the time they do that at the end of penetration, which with nearly any solid is beyond where it has to get to, to accomplish the mission-most of the time. It does not mean the test work in the lab is invalid, nor does the test work in the lab suggest the opposite! The test work suggests that if one bullet out performs another consistently time and again, that the better performing bullet will perform in the field with the same consistency. 100% all the time? No, there are too many variables that can be introduced in the field that can't be controlled in the lab. We learn from both the test work and the field work--one is not so good without the other! Both Finn Aagaard and Jack Carter did extensive test work---then they took the bullets to the field! That is the proper way to do things. In both the test medium and the field work they learned things, they learned how to make the bullets better! As for myself I am trying to learn how not to have a failure in the field! I want my rifle shooting to a correct point of impact, I want my rifle sound and functional, I want my bullets to perform correctly both ballistically and terminal performance, I want to make sure everything is as good as I can get it before going to the field with any unknown factors. If I can control some of these things, then I am most likely going to increase my chances of being successful in the field. If you have a problem with that, then it is your problem, not mine. I do not intend to go through this again with you, and if you can't get off it then I will merely ignore you in the future. I'd rather not, as I am sure I can learn from you, but not this way!

Currently I am also collecting other data that has direct comparisons to what I need in the field. I am going out of town soon to some extreme low temps--probably in the -20 to -40 range. I am testing the loads that I am taking by putting them in the freezer for a a few hours, along with the rifle at
at -15 degrees to see how the ammo and rifle function in this sort of weather. I don't wish to get to my destination and figure on 2200 fps and get poor results in terminal performance of the bullet because it drops out the end of the barrel! I don't want to get ready to turn my bolt and find it frozen solid and locked down.

We learn from test work, sorry to tell you, but there is always more to learn, while field work is without doubt where it counts the most, going to the field with little or no knowledge is rather foolish in my opinion! I will continue to test, thank you!
Michael
Michael

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

I found the soft to react exactly the same as the former 458 Interbond, which broke off the front portion of the bullet, about 1/3 of the bullet disintegrating leaving the remaining slug that did penetrate deep.

That's not bad IMHO

For buff it doesn't bode well.

In wet pack, any flat nose bullet, which would likely include a busted off base, will travel further than it is likely too in an animal, and the difference between any flat bullet and any other bullet is magnified, which indicates the problem with the medium.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
JPK

The medium in not discredited--nor credited. Yes, I absolutely make comparisons between the medium and animal tissue. Until you have some credibility with both issues how is it possible you can have a comment at all?

...

I have told you, solids produce a completely different dynamic, that all of us are just at the doorstep of beginning to learn about! No one has all the answers yet. Certainly not me, and without any doubt not you. But we do strive to get there.

....

If you cannot grasp the good coming from any test work then I have to write you off as a fool and I am totally not sure why you would refuse to learn from such work, regardless thereof.

....

I can certainly learn from your field observations!

....

We learn from test work, sorry to tell you, but there is always more to learn, while field work is without doubt where it counts the most, going to the field with little or no knowledge is rather foolish in my opinion! I will continue to test, thank you!
Michael
Michael

Rsponding in order (and keep in mind that I am discussing solids, only):

The medium is totally discredited. Take the Limbaugh test as an example. More importantly, I have relatively substantial experience with the only medium that counts. Most importantly, my field results completely contradict both your results and those of others who's folly runs to playing with wet pack.

You may be just learning about solids, but there is huge existing experience already. That real life experience has indicated for a generation that hemisherical solids work well while pointier solids are not as reliable. More recently, but not yesterday, experience has confirmed that flat nose solids penetrate further than round nose solids, at least in flesh and possibly in elephant heads, when they travel straight. You ignore history, and there is a lot of it which serves to contradict your so called test results in your discredited medium.

I learn from tests, in real animals. You refuse to learn from these real life experiences because they contradict the results obtained in your dis-similar medium. When real results do not reflect those achieved in tests, and the tests cannot predict real results, the test is wrong, not the real results! You are so enamored of your tests that you turn a blind eye to real results.

You ought to learn from my results in the real world, in the only medium that counts. From others too, and the couple of generations of similar results, but you refuse. For example, as you have written in prior posts, your so called tests predict that a round nose solid will veer and deviate from straight line penetration almost always, but real hunting of real game produces entirely different results, reliable straight line penetration! The whole point of any tests is predicatability of actual results, not to see which bullet design maximizes an attribute in a medium that is irrelevant.

I am 100% sure that there is more to learn, but it cannot be learned untilizing a medium which produces results contradictory to results achieved in real hunting. And real hunting, and the results, adequate penetration or not, defromation or not, deviation from strat line or not, ..., achieved doing it are exclusively relevant. Nothing else is relevant. A test medium that would accurately predict field results would be a huge benefit, but wet pack isn't it. Your accusation that I, or others who rely on either a couple of generations of actual reults, or their own in game tests, are "going to the field with little or no knowledge" couldn't be further from the truth! I, and others are relying one actual field results in the only medium rellevant. In my own case, I relied on the generations of experience of others before me, but also on the experiences of a couple of veterans who, like I later did, peformed their own tests on live and then dead game. The really ironic situation is that any person who heads to the field relying on your tests and similar, in a medium which produces results contrary to real results, and which is incaplable of predicting real results, are the ones heading to the field "with little or no knowledge" and decieving themselves in the proccess.

Hey, I'm all for testing, but for any test to be worth a darn, it needs to be predictive of reality, and not produce results contrary to real results.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

I found the soft to react exactly the same as the former 458 Interbond, which broke off the front portion of the bullet, about 1/3 of the bullet disintegrating leaving the remaining slug that did penetrate deep.

That's not bad IMHO

For buff it doesn't bode well.

In wet pack, any flat nose bullet, which would likely include a busted off base, will travel further than it is likely too in an animal, and the difference between any flat bullet and any other bullet is magnified, which indicates the problem with the medium.

JPK

It appears that is the way Hornady designed the DGX to work and I can't see why they won't work and work well as designed

Wide Meplat Flat Nose solids out penetrate round nose solids in animals as well as in wet pack.

JWP475,

If the results pictured in the add were the results Michael458 acieved, I could not agree more. But I read his post to descibe a bullet that broke at the cannelure, not one that produced controled expansion.

From several PH's in Zim during my hunt late October into November, the bullets were coming apart, as described by Michael458. Also noted was that the more velocity, the more unreliable they became and the more they came apart. No suprise on the velocity comment, any bullet will suffer more deformation at higher velocity. Even mono solids.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:
Wide Meplat Flat Nose solids out penetrate round nose solids in animals as well as in wet pack.

Flesh yes, if they go straight. Elephant heads, maybe, if they go straight. Bone, ivory, no.

Recall that I am a fan of flat nose solids.

Recall as well that Michaael458 is arguing (as in debating, not fighting) that round nose or small meplat steel jacketed solids won't penetrate straight. He bases his argument on the so called tests he runs, in which they veer almost always, according to his prior posts. But they don't veer as often as flat nose bullets in game in my experience, or those on this forum.

For support of my contention, I've has three flat noses veer and no round noses - just recalled another flat nose that veered this last trip - and for addition support, see the thread by 465H&H where he polls those who have used either to find out if anyone had observed a round nose veer. No had. Search the African Hunting forum to find his thread.

Also, the difference between flat nose vs round nose penetration that wet pack tests produce is not reflected in the real world. At least in my experience. Yes flat nose bullets penetrate more, but not so much more. Also, wet pack produces contrary results when it comes to actual penetration of round nose solids vs flat nose "solids" with the round nose traveling x velocity and the flat nose significantly less. This will get into the "45/70 is as good as the 458wm..." crap, which I will abstain from tonight.

Don't forget though, so far as I know, I'm the only guy to actually try 458wm loads in an elephant head along with 45/70 loads, and 375H&H loads for a direct comparrision, however limited it was.

We have guest arriving for dinner and I'm in the doghouse for hiding out up here in my office. Gotta go, have a good evening!

JPK

JPK

Did your father beat you with wet newspaper when you were a child? I am quite sure you must have had some sort of trauma involving wet newspaper in your childhood, to cause such a fear, phobia, and loathing of the substance. JP-it is only wet print, there is nothing to fear, but fear itself!

You know JPK that everyone on AR or everyone around you, speaks to you, has anything to do with you, they all know of your vast field experiences, You make sure of that. We are all proud of your experiences, and for sure can learn something from it. Maybe you should write a book? However, try to remember that it is very difficult to give you a pat on the back as your own hand is always in the way!

Another great fantasy of yours is that you state that any flat nose bullet will penetrate further in, your term "wet pack" than in animal tissue. This is not true. The fact of the matter is that any solid bullet will penetrate deeper in animal tissue than that of "wet pack!" With the flat nose solids I have worked with it measures out to be roughly 30-35% deeper in animal tissue.

Concerning solids (once again) I can only attest to the bullets I have worked with. I have not used Northfork, GS Custom Solids, or any other. I have used Barnes RN Solids-both tests and in the field-I have uses Barnes Banded FN solids in tests and in the field--I have used the solids that JD and I designed both in tests and in the field--all of these on elephant, buffalo and hippo. In fact a 500 gr Barnes RN saved my bacon from a hippo in Tanzania in 2005, from a Winchester M70 458 Lott. Did you hear that JPK--Barnes 500 gr Round Nose?

JPK-FYI--In 2002 in the Matetsi I shot a huge big body bull with Win M70 458 Lott-500 gr Barnes RN Solids. Ivory was good-38-42 lbs, I was pleased with that as it was a late season hunt and I was on a whirlwind tour with one of my old friends Scot Bailey, working with HHK Safaris at the time. Scot and I got along famously as he was as interested in shooting and loading as I am. I had a Marlin Guide gun along in 45/70 at the time, I still love lever guns. At that time there were not so many great bullets for 45/70 that would work thru a lever gun. So the big solids were the Cast Performance bullets, which while they did well, I had some issues with them. I was shooting the 420 gr Cast Performance at just a tad over 1900 fps in the 18 inch guide gun. In those awful "wet pack" tests the Cast Performance bullet had a very sharp, large flat meplat, that when it contacted hard things--pine 2X4 the sides would shear off leaving a wadcutter slug that lost about 1/3 of it's total weight. In pure wet print this did not happen that often, but did occur on occasion. I had some concerns about this bullet doing that if it contacted bone. Scot really liked the little gun, and with both of us curious as to how the load, and bullet performed, and we had a huge elephant head to work with we did a little test work of our own. We rolled the big head, about 4-5 of us to do so as I recall, straight and at 10 yds I hit it with a side brain shot. Getting the head apart to see the path of the bullet was no easy chore, obviously you know that from your "Vast" experiences in these matters, we found our 420 gr Cast Performance had in fact made a direct path straight thru the brain cavity, and was found about 1.5 inches on the other side of the brain cavity. The bullet had in fact sheared the sides off, leaving about 2/3s of the bullet intact. Later on cape buffalo the bullet performed well as long as it did not hit bone. While I love 45/70 I don't think it much of a choice for elephant or buffalo.

Oh--gee JP--I forgot to mention that this was one of my "REAL LIFE EXPERIENCES". Oh, I really don't want to say anything to offend you, or maybe scare you again with "wet Pack"--but it seems that my tests predicted these exact results! I am whispering that as to not get you too excited.

"So as far as YOU know, You are the only guy to actually try 45/70 loads on a elephant head for comparison" It's a big world out there JPK--there are a lot of people doing things that you or I may not know about. "So far as you Know" is a good term--might not be "too far"?

In 2001 in Namibia's Caprivi Strip I shot a large bull elephant once again Winchester M70 458 Lott-500 gr Barnes RN Solid at 2270 fps-side brain shot. The bull down and out on the spot. Good ivory, always happy with any ivory, this was 51-55 lbs. He was a lefty. So was the 2002 bull in the Matetsi, left handed that is. My side brain shot did not exit, which I was amazed to learn. The next day with the head in camp we found the bullet on the off side, it had turned sideways. I was not concerned, as it gave straight line penetration plenty far enough to drive thru the brain and out the other side. It had only turned at the very end of it's terminal performance. No big deal, right?

In 2007 I got two PAC elephants, a left over quota and I could take two bulls, and keep the ivory as long as it did not go over 30 lbs per side. It was perfect chance for me to test our 510 gr FN Solid that we had designed for my 50 B&M, a true .500 caliber cartridge, contained in a small compact rifle, Win M70 WSM action with 18 inch barrel, light, short handy. The bullet is a CNC machined by David Fricke, 510 gr .500 caliber, at 2100 fps. In the dreaded wet print test work it would give consistent straight line penetration of 64 inches, and on several occasions out the back of the box into the berm.
Dead straight every time. I had good confidence that it would do the job--but as you say "real life Experience" is the only thing that counts! I could not agree more! We were hunting at night, did I mention that? Oh, this was in Zim with Dudley Rodgers too. I tell you JPK-if you ever hunt elephants at night you won't want to go back to daylight, somewhat boring in the light of day! At first I was not so sure about this night hunting thing, but after being so close to elephants all around you, and not being able to see your hand in front of your face, and not able to see an elephant at 10 yds, I must say it is exhilarating to say the least.

The second night out we had two bulls approach us along a dry river bed, at 20 steps Dudley hit the light--one has about 2 seconds to find the elephant, decide what the target is, and take the shot. This elephant presented only a frontal brain shot, as you know one of the most difficult shots to make in the hunting world. I took the shot, classic drop, back legs going down first, followed by the front! That was the first animal taken with my 50 B&M Long. I was very pleased. I did not take a second shot, insurance shot for some few seconds waiting to see what the other bull was going to do. Once the other bull was out of the picture, presented no shot, did not even see him, I then took the insurance shot up thru the chest. The next day we examined the head carefully, the bullet penetrated the skull completely, out the back of the brain cavity from the front and lost somewhere in the body not to be found. The second insurance shot had exited the body, from the position it entered between the legs and exited at a downward angle on the far side. It had penetrated roughly 5 ft as best I could measure. So far my bullet was doing great, and confidence was growing.

Two nights later we came across a second group in the bottom of that same dry river bed. Again, about 2 seconds to find, decide, and take the shot. This elephant was 40 yds, the best shot was shoulder/heart shot, I took it, the bull stumbled, nearly going down I thought, he regained his balance and turned, by this time I took a second shot, I had a good angle, and was a bit higher elevation than the elephant, this shot entered the top of his back right side, a third shot some two feet further back than the second shot and he was down. He had traveled about 22 steps from where the dance started. Another postmortem the next morning revealed the first bullet had penetrated completely thru broadside, dead straight penetration, the second bullet penetrated dead straight from the top of the back and thru the front of the chest to exit, this bullet penetrated a total of 7 feet of elephant. The third bullet did not exit and was recovered in the front of the chest. It was 2 ft further back than the second bullet, it was hard to tell exactly how far it had penetrated, so since I can't pinpoint that I won't say exactly, but penetration was great. The first bullet penetrated the heart from broadside, the second bullet penetrated the heart from the rear-both bullets crisscrossing each other in the heart. Not bad for a little rifle, I was pleased. Oh, just another "real life" experience with real bullets, with real test work behind them.

Now I am done bickering about this, we are doing nothing but beating the dead horse---Once Again!
Between you and I we are making zero progress-in no positive manner. I do not condemn your round nose bullets-I just happen to think that there is better to be had--from "REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE" combined with test work before hand.
The round nose solids work---I HAVE USED THEM IN "REAL WORLD" experience. I have learned from "REAL WORLD" experience as well as test work. AND bear in mind please--the instances mentioned in this post are not the ONLY REAL WORLD EXPERIENCES I HAVE--those are a few. I do not feel the need to justify my study of terminal ballistics with my hand on my back each and every time.

Michael

Best just use some good ol Aussie Woodleigh's....

quote:

Originally posted by ozhunter:
Best just use some good ol Aussie Woodleigh's....

Oz
I have used the superb Woodleigh softs on many occasions never to be disappointed! I always have them at the top of the list along with Swifts-and Barnes TSX depending on the job at hand, and how a particular bullet shoots in whatever particular rifle I intend to use at the time. In fact on an upcoming hunt with one of my 458 B&M rifles I will be in fact using a Woodleigh. I have been trying to get your man down there to make some .500 caliber bullets that will work in my bolt guns. But there is not enough demand for that to justify them. The big flat nose 400 gr .500 caliber has too much meplat to feed in the bolt guns. Also it is made for handgun velocities and expands a bit much at the rifle velocities. Response from Aussie land is great however. Have to agree, Woodleighs are damn fine bullets. Especially the soft points, they fill a perfect niche being a bit softer than the Swifts and Barnes, causing better trauma on thin skinned game I think. The larger Woodleighs, say 500 gr 458s are very good on first shots on buffalo. Good stuff, and I agree.

Michael

I can echo what JPK has said about Woodleigh solids always traveling in a straight line. I have shot over 90 of them into elephant and buffalo and have never seen any sign of anything but straight line penetration. It baffles me when I hear someone say that they won't use them because they veered off course in wet paper, plywood or English muffins. I will continue to use them with the utmost confidence in the future.

465H&H

Michael458,

You have real experience. It is rellevant and significant. Rely on it. Make your case for your bullet of choice based on it. Abandon your so called test, which cannot predict actual outcomes and instead predicts outcomes contrary to actual results.

BTW, seems you have forgotten that I am an ardent fan of flat nose, driving band mono solids.

FWIW, ~50% of 500gr Woodelighs at 2145fps fully penetrate on broadside shots, 100% of North Fork 450's at 2200fps. At 2050fps, 50% of Woodleigh 500's exit on side brain shots, small sample. At 2145fps, 100% of Woodleighs exit on side brain shots. 100% of those NF's, at 2200fps, that went straight have exited on side brain shots, but one veered 90* and failed even to penetrate the zygomatic arch.

JPK

I ordered a couple a boxes of 500gr,458 Woodleigh weldcores and one box of the fmj.I hope they are the ones with the pure copper jackets and not the ones with the gilding metal.I'll have to check and see if the new Hornady bullets have pure copper jackets.If they don't they are worthless for hunting to me.I orderd some A-frames as well.These have pure copper jackets.The only thing that I don't like about the 500gr 458 A-frames,is that they are spitzers.I would like all my 500gr 458 cal bullets I use in my bolt rifles to be RN's.That way they make the gunsmiths work easier amd my rifles feed as slick as anything.Take it from a SHOOTING BALLERINA who knows things.Bullet jackets have to be THICK,SOFT and STICKY to work on big game!

quote:

I ordered a couple a boxes of 500gr,458 Woodleigh weldcores and one box of the fmj.I hope they are the ones with the pure copper jackets and not the ones with the gilding metal.

Woodleigh has never used pure copper jackets. They make gilding metal (90/10 copper/zinc) covered steel jacketed solids and gilding metal jacketed bonded core softs.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
Take it from a SHOOTING BALLERINA who knows things.Bullet jackets have to be THICK,SOFT and STICKY to work on big game!

Wow, I'm not even going to touch that one.

quote:

Originally posted by 400 Nitro Express:

quote:

I ordered a couple a boxes of 500gr,458 Woodleigh weldcores and one box of the fmj.I hope they are the ones with the pure copper jackets and not the ones with the gilding metal.

Woodleigh has never used pure copper jackets. They make gilding metal (90/10 copper/zinc) covered steel jacketed solids and gilding metal jacketed bonded core softs.

At least they are RN.I hope that 90 percent is pure copper.I remember how soft the copper was on the old,original bear claws.The new jackets are far from the original.Woodleigh seemed to have changed their jackets.I saw this on a recent post.The old ones were more dull yellow(like the last ones I bought).This gilding metal thing is not clear.Anyways,I don't think Hornady is useing the quality copper.They didn't use it in the past.Hornady is not famous for quality.It is famous for quality/price,but Winchester is better at this.

quote:

Woodleigh seemed to have changed their jackets.I saw this on a recent post.The old ones were more dull yellow(like the last ones I bought).

Nothing has changed. Woodleigh has used gilding metal since company start-up. The first solids were brass jacketed instead of steel for a short time, but that was 25 years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by 400 Nitro Express:

quote:

Woodleigh seemed to have changed their jackets.I saw this on a recent post.The old ones were more dull yellow(like the last ones I bought).

Nothing has changed. Woodleigh has used gilding metal since company start-up.

Yes,but what if the copper in the gilding metal is not the same kind,but a cheaper one?

Pure copper is pure copper. Gilding metal is brass (copper/zinc alloy) that can vary slightly in the amount of each metal. Woodleigh has always used 90/10.

400 Nitro Express,
You are being far too patient with shootaway.
As to his quote below, I can only say this:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
Yes,but what if the copper in the gilding metal is not the same kind,but a cheaper one?

Hey 465

I was wondering where you were! I knew you would throw in somewhere down the line! Welcome! Seems you are getting in on the tail end, and we might just be getting somewhere!

First let me explain direct to you, I choose what has done the best in the test work, regardless of the test. The test does not mean the other will not accomplish the mission at hand, in the field. Obviously it does, your experience, others, combined with my own are very much welcomed, absorbed, and added to the data base, nothing is discounted here. Experience is everything, no test in the lab is 100% for anything, until tested outside the lab, whether in the field, or in the streets. This has always, from day one been my viewpoint. But I do think we need to start somewhere other than the field, especially with new concepts, new ideas, and new bullets. Older bullets, such as your beloved Woodleighs, then one can rely on the experience of others, and that is sound, I have no issue at all, and have done so myself. We have no argument as I see it.

JPK
Well we are making some progress I see! Excellent, not there yet, but small steps. Thank you. I also thank you for the added information, I find that valuable, and something that now can be documented. I have, as noted, no experience with the NorthFork, nor GS Custom bullets, so the information you pass along is good and valuable. I have never found a need for them, as the other bullets I have been using have been so successful.

And looks like the heat is off my tail for at least a little while!

Michael