Copper is not copper like all pizza is not pizza and all coffee is not coffee. Ask someone who knows bullets and I am sure he will agree with me.Your way of thinking is all to common.

quote:

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?

Yeah. I suppose we should put that one up in neon lights.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
Copper is not copper like all pizza is not pizza and all coffee is not coffee. Ask someone who knows bullets and I am sure he will agree with me.Your way of thinking is all to common.

Oop! There's another one!

quote:

shootaway: Ask someone who knows bullets and I am sure he will agree with me.Your way of thinking is all to common.

Michael458,

I don't think you get it. You have mentioned your experience with buff and elephants before. Your results would not differ much if any from my results or 465H&H's or others who are using solids of similar enough types, at similar enough velocities, etc. And while there will always be anomalies, enough repetion will weed those out. Your real world results do not differ much from my results from what I can tell from the incomplete info you related. (For example, not all velocity info, not 100% sure which bullets or shapes, weights or materials..., etc.) And I wouldn't expect them to. Never had a problem with observed field results being relevant and useful.

The problem lies with your reliance on so called tests in a medium that produces results which do not predict actual results, and instead produces results contrary to actual results. When a so called test cannot predict actual results, and instead produces results contrary to actual results, it isn't a test, it is a waste of time, and worse, reliance on it leads to false conclusions. This is the problem.

For you to pronounce that the Hornaday solids will produce inadequate results in real hunting, because they produced inadequate results in your so called tests, which cannot produce results repeatable in the real world, is ridiculous.

So, default to real world results, yours, mine or others for accurate predictions of future real world results.

Ditch the so called tests which can't accurately predict actual field results.

{FWIW, boiling down actual field results, mine and many others', at least as I interpreted the reports, tops for penetration in flesh are truncated cone flat nose solids (like NF or GS Custom,) then round nose steel jacketed solids (the flat nose steel jacketed bullet, like the Hornadays are too new for enough report to have been made and filed, in the field test to have been done, bullets dug, etc, to know anything other than, "They seem to work very well.",) then the Barnes round nose ogived, flat points, and lastly the round nose mono metals (Barnes and similar round nose mono metals, like A Square.) For at least partial support for this contention, try a search here for the results 500 Grains achieved in his test of various bullets in buff, eles and giraffe. See also his article on the topic in African Hunter Magazine, where he discussed some of his results. 500 Grains has recently been bannned from the site because of his participation in the Political Forum here at AR, which is a crying shame since he has much experience, preformed many tests and then dug many bullets, using different calibres and different velocities, on dead elephants, buff and giraffe. He also had a great deal to contribute on other topics and was most always willing to help. He talked me into trying for my first elephant, as well.}

JPK

(BTW, Shootaway isn't much cover! )

The three buff I have killed with my 458 Lott were absolutely manhandled by the Woodleigh bullets. I used Norma factory loads, soft on top and solids underneath, and shooting until down.
The 500gr softs were formed into nicely shaped mushrooms and stopped by the hide on the far side on the animals. The Woodlegh solids were pass thru shots that sailed straight as laser beams.
No improving on this, but I am having my DR regulated for the new Horady DGX & DGS ammo, which I am told is due out next month for the 470NE. Being an engineer, I enjoy testing such things in the real world.

JPK
Incomplete Info??? Not sure what bullets? What planet do you live on? I have 100% complete data. I am not going back to the book, but the data is complete.

And no--you don't get it! You don't listen--you cannot read-you do not have the capability of understanding what I have said over and over and over.

I will repeat one last time---My test work does not say that any particular solid will not do the job--just that some bullets penetrate better, and straighter than others, regardless of medium. I do not say, have not said-that the other bullets would NOT do the mission at hand. I have used the bullets that did do very well in the test work, and they did very well in the field too! I can't fathom what you are still talking about, what you are still attacking me about? I can't state it plainer or more simple! Therefore you must have a problem with me personally which is very much fine with me!


You can take your "so Called test" comment and shove it right up............well take a guess, I give you a little hint.

I have no need to try and justify anything I do to you. Who are You? Please-you continue to do your thing and that is fine--I will for sure continue to do my thing and that will too be fine. I suggest that you find another avenue for your frustrations in life.

I like the little comment about shootaway not being much cover, that was cute. I don't need any cover from the likes of you, it does not take too much to have you figured out, however I refrain from going there as it would most certainly be petty and beneath my dignity to expose those matters.

I cannot understand how you or anyone that actually reads my posts on this does not understand what I have been saying concerning this matter. It is stated above, again. And the last time, You don't get it, probably never will. So as I knew right from the beginning, whatever discussion you and I have is a total waste of my time, your time, and the time on this thread. But for those who have not read the entire thread, and may have only read your BS CRAP let me state for the ending;

In my test work with a very difficult wet print/magazine mix I find that certain flat nose solids (not all) do penetrate better than others in this test work. Those that have penetrated the deepest, and straightest, I have used in the field on real elephants and buffalo and these bullets did extremely well in the field. I have also used bullets that did not do well in the tests, but did very well in the field on real elephants, buffalo and hippo, namely some round nose solids. Which says to me that the tests put stresses on the bullets (which is exactly what you want to do) and that although some round nose type bullets may not have done well in the test, it is still good enough that one can use in the field with good results. I do not CONDEMN the bullet, I just choose FOR MYSELF the bullet that not only does well in the test, but extremely well in the field, via my field experience and test work combined. Not one above the other. Really is that difficult to understand? I don't condemn the Woodliegh FMJ round noses, nor the Hornady, nor anything, I just happen to believe that there is better, and that while these may be adequate and obviously are, both you and I have used them or similar type, I think we can do better.



Now you quote to going back in time looking at this that or the other to prove your point--whatever that is, because I assure you I don't understand what you are trying to get at other than I should cease and desist with all test work, Which I will not by any stretch. Now let me direct you back in time, I can't pinpoint, I was not involved in this, but there is a recent post, I think over on the African Forum showing several photos of broken, bent, deformed, round nose bullets used in the field on elephant. I have also seen several other photos on this forum of the same. All bullets fail if given enough time---of course I want to be the first to point out--although these bullets did fail, they still were taken out of DEAD ELEPHANTS>>>so how much failure is that really??? The failure is not that it did not accomplish the mission, the failure is that in some future scenario that it could fail to the point that it will not accomplish the mission. What I don't get is the fact that even some people on this very thread for sure saw some of the failures, yet continue to advocate strongly in favor of these very same bullets? How can that be? No, I don't get it!

JPK, your ancestors started their hunting careers with clubs and rocks, soon they found that a sharp stick would keep the beasts of the earth at arms length. Later by strapping a sharpened stone on the end of that stick that it would penetrate flesh better, cause a wider wound channel, slice flesh and vital organs, and cause death faster and more efficient. Then they discovered the bow and arrow. Now they could take game at a longer distance, they could make war on their enemies from further away. Gunpowder and muskets soon followed. Now they discovered that the conical bullet would fly straighter, further, and truer than a ROUND ball, by adding rifling to the barrel they could gain extreme accuracy. Now we advance to smokeless powder and the age of high velocity! With this new advance in propellents, we discover our bullets are not worth a damn and cannot stand the velocity that can be achieved. We make better bullets that can hold up! We then advance to many different bullets, for any job or mission you can think of, pointy high BC bullets, bonded core softs to hold together for deeper penetration at these higher velocities used on game, and now we advance to better and more efficient solids for use on heavy game.

Now does this mean the CLUB and ROCKS do not kill, do not accomplish the mission any longer?
No it does not, a heavy club will still do the job, no question about it! It did so far longer than we have been shooting bullets!!!!! For the record, and no misunderstanding I state here and now that a Club will still kill and take game by causing great blunt force trauma! Got it?

You are good entertainment JPK, I will give you that! You guys have a nice day!



Michael

415sbarid

Excellent, I have used the 500 gr Woodleigh soft on buff as first shot and found exactly the same great performance from it. While I have not used the Woodleigh FMJ solids on buff I have zero doubt that it would not do a superb job just as you say. I would not hesitate to use that same mix, and have all the confidence in the world it would do the job at hand.

Before 2005 I had always used the Barnes RN solid for second or more followup shots on buffalo. In 2005 I elected to use the new 500 gr Banded FN solid, with some reluctance I might add, (the former RN bullets had accomplished the mission just fine in the past) In Tanzania I took 3 bulls, and regardless of anything I shoot until the problem is solved, or I don't have a shot, or I am out of ammo. If it stands, breaths, moves, and I have a shot, I shoot! You see I like to shoot, and the more I shoot the less ammo I have to carry back home, of course saving some in the end for emergency use you see. The first buff hit with the new 500 gr Barnes banded (458 Lott 2270 fps) gave noticeable reaction to the second shot! Buff don't give much reaction most of the time, especially with second shots as the adrenaline has started to course, but this one and the other two I took on that trip showed noticeable reaction to all hits with the flat nose solids. On those three buff I was only able to shoot the first soft, a 500 Swift, then one solid before all were down. I did of course do the insurance shot on all three once down, total of three each. But I was sold if for no other reason that big flat meplat hit hard up front, and still drilled straight holes thru and thru.

Just have to make sure they feed reliably thru the bolt guns however.

I think the topic of this thread is the Hornady Dangerous game bullets. For the applications we have discussed I would think that the Hornady Solid would do just great for this work, it has a small meplat, however that would facilitate feeding and function in some rifles, and the small meplat would still impart some blunt trauma up front, I would think. I am not sold on the 458 soft point version however. BUT I HAVE NO FIELD EXPERIENCE WITH IT EITHER, therefore I refrain from total condemnation before offending some of the more, sensitive among us that might find offense where there is nothing to offend!!!! So for my purposes I will continue to use what I know for a fact works well.

Michael

Oh, and one more thing JPK--I already know exactly what your response will be to my latest, it is more of the same old same, can I just go ahead and do it for you so that you can spare me having to read your rambling? Here goes!

Michael

I don't understand why you can't get it? Your "so called tests" are invalid, they don't work in real world experience, forget them, leave them behind, they are useless, they produce nothing of value, real world experience is the only thing that counts, we don't need to test anything that has been doing the job forever and ever, test work is bad, we do not want to advance our knowledge when we already have what does the job every time. MY experience is the end word on the subject, you are wasting your time, stop with your foolishness, ditch the so called useless tests!
JPK

So how was that? I think that pretty much sums it up, now you don't have to reply. I have done it for you. Now the question is, should I reply to your reply, that I replied to, in your name, for your reply to my reply? Hmmph?

Please, until you can have something further to contribute, let us both quit beating the dead horse and move in a more productive direction. I know your stance on this subject----You know my stance on this subject (I think). You will not change or yield---I will not change or yield! Therefore all is moot, and time to move to a more productive direction. Do you have any other subjects that we can discuss, possibly in another thread, as we do not want to get too far off course?



Michael

Michael

"original" interlock? hornady's .. too soft, but the steel jacket was a decent bullet

interbond -- too expensive, and then fragile/frangible. not a peer with woodlieghs (would should be a target level of performance)

DGX/DGS
better shape, better price, and better alloys all around.

i want about 75% weight retension on game..

Michal458s medium shows worst case, and it keeps about 2/3 of the bullet weight, at higher than game speeds, in harder than game media.

Matches my assumptions, and what I was told by folks at Hornady.

I'll go with DGX/DGS for all my north american game, please.

As for arguing about repeatibility in test media vs game... it is IMPOSSIBLE to have exactly repeated shots on game, full stop. However, assuming that game is the perfect media, AND anomolies occur, then does that means NO TEST MEDIA is valid???/

Nah, it just means we have different base lines

Jeffe

Finally the voice of reason, intelligence, and wisdom!

I concur with you across the board, and thank you very much for being able to convey what obviously I am not able to communicate. Well said!

Off subject: have 50-458-416 B&M brass from Pete in hand, 500 MDM on the way--Brass is fantastic, in process of cutting, forming now. Thanks for the tip, it panned out extremely well.

Michael

Michael458,

You did not provide the velocity of the bullets you were using in your previuos posts. And I remain uncertain which bullet was wich calibre, at what velocity.

While you again reiterate what you have posted, paraphrased here, "...just because the bullets fail my test doesn't mean they will fail in the field...", this contradicts many of your earlier posts, including your first on this thread where you predict that the Hornaday will be a failure in the field.

The only failure is your test. I does not accurately predict actual results, and produces results contrary to actual results. So it is no test at all.

Dumpt the test ans default back to your real life experiences and those of others. Actual field results from bullets shot into live and dead eles and buff provide true prectictions of future real world results. Your results, my results, others' results will not vary much when similar bullets at similar velocities are used.

Dump the tests.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
"original" interlock? hornady's .. too soft, but the steel jacket was a decent bullet

interbond -- too expensive, and then fragile/frangible. not a peer with woodlieghs (would should be a target level of performance)

DGX/DGS
better shape, better price, and better alloys all around.

i want about 75% weight retension on game..

Michal458s medium shows worst case, and it keeps about 2/3 of the bullet weight, at higher than game speeds, in harder than game media.

Matches my assumptions, and what I was told by folks at Hornady.

I'll go with DGX/DGS for all my north american game, please.

As for arguing about repeatibility in test media vs game... it is IMPOSSIBLE to have exactly repeated shots on game, full stop. However, assuming that game is the perfect media, AND anomolies occur, then does that means NO TEST MEDIA is valid???/

Nah, it just means we have different base lines

The debate is regarding solids, only, so you miss the point on softs, they are not being debated.

In addition, Michael458's test predict that all, or almost all, round nose solids - and in his first post he extends that to the Hornaday flatish nose solids - will veer and fail to deliver straight line penetration. This is completly contrary to avtual results. So the thest is less than worthless.

I am not arguing that Michael458's test aren't repeatable, they are. The problem is that they repeatably fail to predict actual, real world results, so they are invalid. No base line adjustment can make up for a repeatable, but false, result, and so prediction that an entire class of bullets that have proven otherwise in the real world will always, or almost always, fail.

For real world rsults contrary to Michael458's test, refer to 465H&H's post on this thread, as well as his thread in African Hunting where he solicits examples of turned round nose solids, and finds none. Also, see 500 Grain's article on the subject in African Hunter Magazine. Please point me in the direction of sources which support Michael459's contention that round nose solids will always, or almost always, veer in the real world.

The only test medium that has provided useful data regarding elephant heads is elephant heads. Ballistic gelatin and a few other substances provide useful data for flesh, none really does the job when it comes to simulting heavy bone in flesh. But you know this.

Read the thread.

Michael458,

Where is it in Jeffeoso's post that you find support for your pronouncement that the new Hornadays (softs and solids) will be failures?

JPK

JPK


I already did this for you above in my reply to your reply, where I replied for you! More of the same old same.

Jeffe is the voice of reason and moderation, I do not state anywhere that the bullets will fail in the field, you assume that is what I am saying, which I have repeatedly attempted to convey to you with no success. They have failed in my test work, this is fact, I have not used them in the field, so I cannot attest to that. I am quite sure they would do good field work, I just think other designs will do better, not that these will fail. This has been repeated over and over and over, and now over again.

Now JPK, I assume you are married, if not I make the assumption that you like girls, I also make the assumption that you are familiar with "girly" ways, and some of the things women say, and some comments that are universal to women??
I have learned some things from women in my life. Been around them quite a bit myself. Have you ever been in a discussion, argument, or debate with a woman? At some point in a lengthy conversation, argument, debate, has the woman ever said this "Whatever John!"? That one little word that totally ends all logic, all reason, and all arguments, debates, or discussions, "WHATEVER". Ever heard that? God knows I have, many times! Now if you have heard it, do you understand exactly what it means? It does not mean that she relents in any way, it means that she thinks you are a pigheaded oaf that cannot possibly have enough intelligence to understand or comprehend what the conversation has been about to start with. It means that regardless of what you have to say that she is done with this subject and will not continue it under any circumstances, the subject has come to an end, all has been said that needs to be said, she is right, you are stupid and you need to move on! And for several days there after you are in the doghouse, and it will be brought up to you years later when you least expect it, and when you have long ago forgotten the entire issue and have no recollection of it at all! You will knit your eyebrows and ask what in the world are you talking about? She will then recount every single word of it to you damn near verbatim. Your jaw will drop, you will say that this was 10 years ago, I don't remember that far back.

Thanks for you input JPK
Michael

Hmmm. Well, lets see...This string was supposed to be about whether Hornady's new steel jacketed softs and solids are any good. It has turned into a two page pissing match about whether or not their performance in a given artificial medium (wet newsprint) is in any way a valid predictor of performance in the field.

First, Wombat posted:

quote:

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

Then you, Michael, posted:

quote:

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.

Well, that's pretty clear. To summarize, you state that, based on the results of your "tests", these bullets "do not measure up at all", so obviously "the PH in Zim would be correct", and you "would not" use these on animal tissue. Ergo, you assert that your "tests" are a reasonable predictor of the terminal performance of these bullets on game, which is so poor that you would not use them on game and suggest that they should be relegated to the status of "practice bullets" only.

Then old Pondoro takes you to task:

quote:

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.

Then, to distill your response down to your last post, you maintain:

quote:

I do not state anywhere that the bullets will fail in the field,....I am quite sure they would do good field work

Small wonder JPK is confused. So am I.

Let's try again. You stated:

quote:

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

To which Jeffe replied:

quote:

Michal458s medium shows worst case, and it keeps about 2/3 of the bullet weight, at higher than game speeds, in harder than game media.

Matches my assumptions, and what I was told by folks at Hornady.

I'll go with DGX/DGS for all my north american game, please.

To which your response is:

quote:

Jeffe

Finally the voice of reason, intelligence, and wisdom!

I concur with you across the board, and thank you very much for being able to convey what obviously I am not able to communicate. Well said!

Huh?

You also have ignored the issue JPK raised - your failure to provide the velocities that you tested at - an important variable in this instance. You stated that:

quote:

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.

Ah. You didn't work with the caliber those bullets were designed for. The 480 grain .458 DGS and DGX, Nos 45032 & 45033 were designed for the .450 Nitro Express. Hornady made these bullets available to handloaders at the same time they introduced the ammunition. They're supposed to work at 2,000 to 2,100 fps, not the 2,300 fps of the Lott. The bullets intended for the Lott are the 500 grain .458 DGS & DGX, Nos 4505 & 4507. Since you tested in the Lott and didn't answer the question, I assume you tested at Lott velocities, which means your testing was invalid due to the velocity variable alone. I'd suggest that you use the correct bullets for your rifle in any further testing.

Most folks who contradict themselves as completely as you have here are usually....well, ah...rather well into their cups.

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
The debate is regarding solids, only, so you miss the point on softs, they are not being debated.

I read Jc's first fpost, I might suggest the same, as he asked about the softs and solids,

quote:

Originally posted by lawndart:
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

RN's FN, and large ogive all penetrate differently in different media.

If the test repeat, then IN THAT MEDIA, the tests are valid.

Mark - 3 different hornady bullet lines, innerlock, innerbond, and DGx/S ... the later being the better. And perhaps still not a "woodleigh" bullet

Hey Nitro
Welcome, figured you to kick in too at some point.

Good of you to pick and choose what you wanted to out of my posts to make the attempt at making things look rather silly for me. Thank you. I appreciate your effort, and while some of the things you picked out certainly can be construed that way.

I tested the 480 Hornady in 458 B&M Winchester M70 with 1:14 twist Pac Nor Barrel 2157 fps muzzle velocity-15 ft from muzzle--20 yard impact with velocity measured at 2121 fps at impact.

Next is that of course I make comparisons. I would not use them in the field, as I know for a fact both from test work and field experience with other bullets, there are better designed bullets for the job at hand. I have not used these in the field, have stated so. Both you and JPK conveniently ignore tests from the field stated by Wombat, that you include in your post???? Why is that? Of course it has nothing to do with the bullets, but to only attempt to discredit me. I don't know Wombat, nor the PHs in Zim that he heard about. I have heard nothing about them myself. I would go along with that however because of the test work, that includes both bullets, the soft point and the solid. I don't consider them to measure up to other designs. Without any doubt whatsoever the soft point is no where close to a Woodleigh, Swift or Barnes X. The solids we can debate, but I do not consider them better than other designs, so I would not use them ahead of other bullets that I consider superior in the field. Again conveniently you ignore the next statement in my very first post on this subject to the effect "By far the better choices are Swift, Woodleigh, Northfork, Barnes TSX for softs, Barnes Banded FN for solids--all of which I think are superior to the Hornady bullets. I still think this. Whether you agree or not is fine. I am a great Hornady fan, and personally I think they could do better, very much so with the soft points.

I have not worked with other calibers--not cartridges, but meaning .416, .474, or such. I have worked and shot the Interbonds in 416 and 458--finding the exact same issue with the 500 gr 458 caliber Interbond as I do the 480 gr Dangerous game soft point. Both break off and leave about 2/3s of the slug to do the work. The 500 Interbond was with the 458 lott at 2250 fps. Again, the 480 Hornady at 2157 fps, as stated above. I did find just the opposite with the 400 gr 416 Interbond in 416 Remington at 2360 fps. The 416 Interbond has yet to break or shear like the 458 caliber bullets, either Interbond or Dangerous game soft point.

Some of your confusion I might take some responsibility for, as this thread has taken many curves, many different directions and I have in every way tried to explain things, that some will not accept, and continue to condemn or refuse to attempt to understand. So maybe I did confuse, but I think Jeffe has sparked an idea that I am going to try one more time. In the next post down, to try and keep them short.
M

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
The debate is regarding solids, only, so you miss the point on softs, they are not being debated.

I read Jc's first fpost, I might suggest the same, as he asked about the softs and solids,

quote:

Originally posted by lawndart:
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

RN's FN, and large ogive all penetrate differently in different media.

If the test repeat, then IN THAT MEDIA, the tests are valid.

Mark - 3 different hornady bullet lines, innerlock, innerbond, and DGx/S ... the later being the better. And perhaps still not a "woodleigh" bullet

There is no debate raging regarding the softs. Read the thread.

A test with which the sponsor purports to predict actual results in the real world but which does not accurately predict results in the real world and instead predicts results contrary to real world rsults is an invalid test. Worse, it leads to false conclusions.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
There is no debate raging regarding the softs. Read the thread.

JPK

The thread is about softs and solids, the ARGUEMENT is about solids.

YOU need to read the thread, I did.. that I tried to bring sense to this pissing match is my POV

Michael458,

The only person who discredits you is you, through your own words. By saying one thing and then another, but contradictory.

{Edit to delete this when you read, please. I am reminded by 400NitroExpress that the new, new steel jacketed flatish point Hornadays came out after Wombat's African trip, and so the report he passed on from his PH is only relevant to the old brass encapsulted Hornadays which are widely known to have been failures. "No one has ignored the report Wombat passed along. It is included in the growing base of knowledge about the real world results acheived with the Hornaday solids. Right along with those report giving glowing praise. The difference between those report and your predictions is that they result from valid sources."}

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
There is no debate raging regarding the softs. Read the thread.

JPK

The thread is about softs and solids, the ARGUEMENT is about solids.

YOU need to read the thread, I did.. that I tried to bring sense to this pissing match is my POV

Like I said, the debate is about solids. Call it an arguement if you wish, a distinction without a difference. Not only have I read the thread, I have participated from the earliest. You should know this if you read the thread.

JPK

I have a Buffalo hunt scheduled. Should I use Hornady's newest or Barnes TSX in my .416 Rigby?

For a buff, TSX for an expanding bullet and whatever solid shoots to the same POI as the soft.

Or look to North Fork Bullets for their softs and cup points. You won't need a solid with the cup point in lieu of a solid. The cup point will expand just a bit. Delivers 80% of the penetration of the North Fork flat nose solid in ballistic gellatin. The flat point solid actually provides too much penetration for buff, if there is such a thing. So the cup point will provide more than adequate penetration in lieu of a solid.

My 2 cents.

JPK

quote:

Mark - 3 different hornady bullet lines, innerlock, innerbond, and DGx/S ... the later being the better. And perhaps still not a "woodleigh" bullet

Jeffe:

I'm familiar with them. I'm speaking of the DGX and DGS only here, which is the subject of the string.


Michael:

quote:

Good of you to pick and choose what you wanted to out of my posts to make the attempt at making things look rather silly for me.

No picking and choosing at all. Your repeated contradictions are confusing.

quote:

I would not use them in the field, as I know for a fact both from test work and field experience with other bullets, there are better designed bullets for the job at hand.

You know nothing of the kind, because:

quote:

I have not used these in the field, have stated so.

quote:

Both you and JPK conveniently ignore tests from the field stated by Wombat, that you include in your post???? Why is that? Of course it has nothing to do with the bullets, but to only attempt to discredit me.

Nothing convenient about it all, and it has everything to do with the bullets. I may be wrong, and it isn't that I don't think Wombat credible, but I agree with Phil (.458 Win). I doubt that the reference to the bullets being used in Africa prior to October 2007 was to the bullets being discussed here. The DGS and DGX weren't introduced until SCI this year. Part of the purpose of Boddington's hunt in April of this year was to try them.

quote:

Some of your confusion I might take some responsibility for, as this thread has taken many curves, many different directions and I have in every way tried to explain things, that some will not accept, and continue to condemn or refuse to attempt to understand.

Well, I certainly think that any confusion is due to your contradicting yourself. The conflict here is due to your choosing to ignore, or refusing to attempt to understand, a few basic truths.

First off, when it comes to the testing of terminal ballistics in various media, many, many people, professional and amateur alike, have been before you. Wet-pac has been done a million times and a thousand different ways. Jeffe is right here:

quote:

RN's FN, and large ogive all penetrate differently in different media.

If the test repeat, then IN THAT MEDIA, the tests are valid.

...and only in that media. At this late date, nobody believes that meaningful conclusions about performance in game can be drawn from testing in wet-pac. That was the consensus when I did so 30 years ago - and proved to myself that the consensus was right.

Further, for your argument, that RN jacketed, lead core solids are far less likely to penetrate in a straight line in game than a flat nose mono, to have even the slightest theoretical, let alone practical, significance, such would have to be at least marginally evident in game, NOT media. Such evidence isn't just marginal - it's completely absent. Those here with substantial experience with the type on game (465 H&H, JPK, 500grains), plus those who responded to the poll on the African forum (and there's a great deal of cumulative experience on game there) report reliable straight-line penetration.

Of course, it isn't necessary to consider the experience of those guys to be conclusive. However, the 110+ year history of the type, in the hands of many, many well known hunters with 20 times the experience of those guys, is. Had RN jacketed solids had a problem with straight-line penetration, a lot of those guys wouldn't have lived to write their memoirs and die of old age. Taylor is a good example. Taylor was both a double rifle nut and a bullet freak, and had high praise for the large bore double rifle solids that he used. Taylor never fired a steel-jacketed solid from a large bore double rifle at game. Steel jacketed solids for the .400+ flanged nitros were introduced the year Taylor stopped hunting. All he ever had was unreinforced nickel-jacketed RN lead. Same is true of the majority of the guys that became famous as a result of great experience.

Attempting to reinvent the wheel with long discredited R & D methodology is pointless. Denying that the wheel already exists and works is pure mental masturbation.

Jeffe was able to remind me of a point that I had nearly ignored, thus making it difficult for some of you to understand. He made the comment "Worst Case" and that the media is tougher than animal tissue. This is true, please allow me to explain.

It is my intention to put stress on these bullets. I want to find out at what point they fail to perform in a reasonable manner, in a reasonable medium.

Define Reasonable medium! Since I am not trying to shoot through concrete bunkers, shooting concrete and rocks have little meaning, and have no bearing. Since I am not trying to shoot armored cars, or armored vehicles shooting through steel has little value. Shooting ballistic gel is far too easy on bullets, so that teaches me nothing. I happened to choose wet news print many years ago, it was cheap, accessible, and I deemed it a "reasonable medium" in which to test in.

I did some test work early with solids and fmjs in straight wet news print. All of them round nose, all of them zipped thru 48 inches of wet news print like hot butter, straight and true. I used the same bullets on elephant, buffalo, hippo with success, so I did not test any further at that time.

Around about 2005 I started injecting catalogs in the mix. For the record I use 6 inches of wet news print--2 inches of catalogs, my most updated box is located on my 50 yard indoor range and can hold 64 inches of wet print mix. Now at first I did not realize that I had very significantly changed my medium. I retested every soft point I had tested in years past, and found that this new mix was 30-35% tougher than straight wet news print alone. Catalogs are very dense. Why did I change? My wife does a lot of internet shopping, we receive catalogs from this activity! To the tune of between 5-10 inches of catalogs every single day! I have them overrunning the place, can't keep up with them! So I decided to start shooting them, they were free, why not? But I did have to renew much of my data from years past.

This mix is tougher than straight animal tissue, with the exception of injecting bone material. I want it to be tougher than animal tissue, I want to stress the bullet to the point of failure to understand how far I can go with a particular bullet. I do not want to give the bullet a free ride, then find in the field a variable that will cause a failure. If it fails I want to know at what point it fails, I want to know if it is possible that this could happen in the field. To do this, you have to stress the bullet.

The procedure goes like this. I build a box of medium, 6 inches of news print--2 inches of catalogs/magazines throughout the 64 inches. As I build along I start soaking it, a section at a time. When the box is packed, it is soaked over and over, left over night, then at the earliest shot the next morning. If not used that day then it is kept soaked until it is.

I have 4 chronographs on the range. When doing terminal performance tests I have to decide what I might encounter in the field. Most of the big bore tests take place at a 20 yard impact from the muzzle. A chronograph is set up 15 ft from the muzzle-and just in front of impact. I have muzzle velocity and impact velocity. Other medium bores are tested at 50 yards. If I need further distance I have an outside range to 150 yards.

Now an example test that I conducted just last week, in conjunction with a test that will apply to an upcoming mission on which I embark in January, which was the primary test.

All 458 Caliber--all in a Win M70 458 B&M 20 inch barrel. 480 gr Hornady Dangerous Game Solid---450 gr Barnes Round NOse Solid--450 gr Barnes Banded FN Solid. The 3 test subjects.

480 gr Hornady DG Solid muzzle velocity 2157 fps Impact velocity at 20 yds 2121 fps. Bullet #1 traveled straight to 25 inches where it started to veer off course, going to 31 inches where it exited the top of the box, hitting the ceiling, and bouncing into the berm behind the box. Bullet #2 started to veer off course at 26 inches, hit the bottom of the box at 32 inches skidding to a stop at 35 inches imbedding itself in the bottom of the box backwards.

450 Barnes Round Nose Solid 2194 fps muzzle-2131 fps impact at 20 yds. Bullet #1 was found backwards in the medium at 24 inches. Bullet #2 started to veer off course at 26 inches where it exited the right side of the box at 35 inches, hitting the far right wall of the range doing some damage to the acoustic foam on that side.

450 Barnes Banded FN Solid 2227 fps muzzle--2172 fps impact at 20 yds. Bullet #1 traveled 100% straight line penetration to 54 inches where it was found nose forward. Bullet #2 penetrated to 55 inches, dead straight line penetration and found nose forward.

Shot medium was removed after each set of tests, and replaced with new medium to keep everything equal.

The little difference in velocity is not enough to make a difference in performance. There must be more of a difference than 50-75 fps.

JPK-465-and 400----I can hear you now--not valid, not real world, not field tests, not animal tissue, not real, invalid so called tests, means nothing, worthless and god knows what else you can come up with, on and on and on. Same old Same!

Guess what boys? I agree with you----To a point! To a point!

Now let us look at this. I would say that if all 3 of these bullets gave the same performance then I would deem the test INVALID. The reason would be that the medium was NOT A REASONABLE MEDIUM---the same as if it were 2 inches of cold rolled steel. However, this is not the case. We now have 1 bullet design that performed very significantly better than the other two! By quite a big margin! So I stressed these bullets to the point that one design could not perform, but the other design not only performed well, but exceedingly well, far and above the other two. Remember this is my mission, I intend to inject variables, anomalies, that will cause a particular bullet to fail to perform, at some point. Now what we have to decide for ourselves is this particular variable, or anomaly that caused the bullet not to perform as expected a valid point? Can there be any circumstance encountered, can there be any variable encountered, can there be any possible anomaly encountered in the field that would cause these two bullet designs to not perform as expected on the intended mission????? It is my contention that in the field there are many many variables, anomalies that may be encountered and no two will ever be the same. Now under normal circumstances I would move to Step two in the test work.

Step two terminal test. I did not do this last week, as I have already done this with similar bullets and this bullet in the past. But if I were going to the field under these circumstances I would have already made my choice of bullets, the 450 gr Barnes Banded Solid FN--of the 3 that were tested. Had I not already done this I would subject this bullet to a bit more stress, what I deem as REASONABLE STRESS. I take either 2 2x4 treated pine, or have taken 1 4x4 treated pine and placed 4-5 inches inside the front of the medium. Of course allowing the bullet to pass thru first the 4-5 inches of wet print mix, then thru the 4x4 pine, then wet print mix for the duration. All Barnes Banded Solids have passed this test completely, with little or no reduction in total penetration. They have never veered off course in this test either. In some cases I have taken it a step further and injected a very dense fiberboard in the mix at extreme angles. I did this with the bullet JD and I designed for my 50s--a 510 gr FN Solid in .500 caliber. I now have that in a 550 gr version for the 500 MDM. This fiberboard is extremely dense material. I had some left over after building an outside deck a couple of years ago. It is 1X4 size. One cannot even hammer a nail in it, it has to be put down with a screw gun, or drill each hole. Even a screw gun has a hard time in it. Very Very Dense. At an angle the bullet passed thru, straight line penetration, out the back of the box into the berm. 64 inches of total material including the fiberboard. I used this same bullet in Zim a couple of years ago on two elephant and 5 cape buffalo and it performed exactly as expected in every case.

Now I keep hearing it over and over and over how these tests are invalid, have no purpose, are useless and worthless. OK, no more nice play. I did not choose to use the bullets that did not perform well in my tests. That would be stupid to ignore, only a idiot would pick the last horse in the race and place his money on it! I picked the horse in front, first place, # 1--the best of the lot, and I placed my money on it! Hey, it also won in the field! It did exactly the job asked of it, regardless of variables, regardless of anomalies, regardless that I asked it to drive through bone, cartilage, flesh, tissue, muscle, thick skin and organs, it did it all and did not fail not once! It did not fail the test work--it did not fail the field work! Now please tell me how in the hell no test work is valid? You smoke that up someone else but not me!

Do not tell me one more time that I state the other bullets do not work in the field. That is fabrication on your part and I have said that over and over to no avail. They do work, they have worked, they have shot many 1000s of elephants with success---But the question is this, how many elephants walked or ran away because a bullet turned, broke, or bent, or was unstable that do not get documented, that cannot be documented and that is blamed on other factor? Are you going to tell me this is not possible? Are you going to say with a straight face that this never could happen? Now what do you choose, a bullet that can be stressed with added variables and can cause failure of that bullet to perform, or do you choose one that passed all REASONABLE TESTS??

Now in writing this small essay I may have forgotten something, I may have forgotten to add a velocity, a number, I may have made a statement somewhere because I was distracted, I had to quit this a few times, then come back to it. I may have lost my train of thought on a subject, who knows? So pick it apart, find an anomaly, or a "SO CALLED ANOMALY" do everything you can to discredit the information, I don't care. I don't do this for you JPK--I am not asking you to buy anything, I am not asking you to sign on to anything, in fact I ask nothing of you. I once again already know what your reply is going to be, so you offer nothing new. If you want I will do your reply for you again as I did in a post above this one? I did a great job, because in your reply you said the same old same, so go to it boy, Have a big time!

If you answer anything beyond the obvious then your BS is showing, your bias and prejudice is showing and you are not being truthful or honest to us, nor even yourself. Twist and turn all you want to, twist what I have said into whatever you want it to say. I cannot make my stand on the issue any clearer, I simply do not know how to do so.


For clarity purposes at the end summation----I declare my tests tougher than that of animal tissue--I intend it to be so--I intend to put REASONABLE STRESS on these bullets to learn at what point they begin to perform less than expected--I do NOT declare that bullets that do not perform well in the test will not perform in the field---I DO DECLARE THAT BULLETS THAT DO PERFORM EXCEEDINGLY WELL IN THE TESTS WILL PERFORM EXCEEDINGLY WELL IN THE FIELD--Where it counts most and the sole reason for the tests to begin with!!!!!!!

Jesus Christ, where will you go from here????????

Michael

400 Nitro



I see no need for us to continue any further. You are determined to stay where you are, I certainly have no issue with that, as I have stated over and over. You stay there--I will stay on my side. All the old guys you mention are great guys--but they did live many years ago, and what they had at that time is not valid with what we have today. Bullets-powder-brass, nothing. So as good as they were, they used what they had, and it was great for them. I say that today we have much better, remember the club still kills pretty good, I don't want to get hit with a ball bat at all---

But as far as this debate, argument, it has been no discussion at all, anything that I would say or do is attacked by the three of you continuously and always the same. Try to come up with something new for a change, you are beginning to bore me!

M

400 Nitro --- JPK

At one time I might have added value to your "so called field Experience" But I can no longer do so. It is my opinion that your objectivity is severely soiled, that you indeed allow your bias to sway your opinions into a malicious, defamatory campaign against all who have a second opinion on the matter. Therefore all of your experience, gathered data, and information concerning said subject is "invalid" beyond redemption. Done so by your own hand I say! It is always my position that I can always learn more, about anything and I am always pleased to gather as much information as possible on any given subject that I might take interest in. However, this information must be presented with some sort of objectivity, free of bias, at least as much as possible. We all have our preferences, however to move forward we must see all points of view, then these must be reviewed, logged, and taken in. Some will be discounted for sure. Some will not. With these perspectives taken into consideration I have to deem whatever information you have on the given subject as soiled and inconsequential because of the EXTREME bias you have on the subject. As you have so eloquently put posts in the past, your work is discredited, invalid, and totally worthless to anyone who would like to assimilate knowledge on this subject because you have only 1 opinion, and not able to have reasonable discussion.

The very best you can do is say that this is what has been used for 110 years, and we don't need to re-invent the wheel? That's it? This is the best you can do????? Damn sure glad that most folks don't think that way. With comments like that how in the world do you think anyone could have respect for that attitude? Thank you, but No thanks.

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by 415sbaird:
... I am having my DR regulated for the new Horady DGX & DGS ammo, which I am told is due out next month for the 470NE. Being an engineer, I enjoy testing such things in the real world.

415sbaird,
Do you really want your double rifle to have a steady diet of steel-jacketed softs and solids?
Most double rifle devotees dread each Woodleigh steel-jacketed FMJ, and prefer to pamper their twin rifling with the gilding-metal-jackets of the RNSP Woodleigh Weldcores.

Ross Seyfried opined that GSC had perfected the solid bullet with their monometal copper, banded FN.

North Fork FP solids and Cup Points are more of the same, equally as gentle on the barrels, monometal copper with driving bands.

I have no problem with using the best bullets possible in a DR, rather than a rock or club :

Woodleigh Weldcore RNSP
North Fork FP and CP
GSC FN

I suppose the North Fork grooved softpoints with solid copper shanks would be O.K. in modern DR's, but not as easy on them as the bonded-lead-cored Woodleigh RNSP.

michael458,
The Iron WaterBoard Buffalo has proven the RN solids inferior to truncated-cone FN also.
All the field experience in the world on live game will also prove the superiority of the FN solid. The naysayers just claim the RN solids are good enough, not that they are better.
I see no use for RN solids, unless your bolt action won't feed them or if your DR just cannot be made to shoot them close to same POI as the softs.

Judicious use of gunsmithing and handloading techniques can make the RN solids totally obsolete, but still adequate if that is the only rock or club you can grab.

Ripp,

Hornaday softs are not steel jacketed, only the solids.

Michael458 has never used or "tested" a truncated cone solid, or at least has not mentioned using one, only the Barnes round nose and the Barnes bnanded round nose ogived flat point. I think he also mentioned using a few Woodleigh solids on game, but I'm not sure.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
400 Nitro --- JPK

At one time I might have added value to your "so called field Experience" But I can no longer do so. It is my opinion that your objectivity is severely soiled, that you indeed allow your bias to sway your opinions into a malicious, defamatory campaign against all who have a second opinion on the matter. Therefore all of your experience, gathered data, and information concerning said subject is "invalid" beyond redemption. Done so by your own hand I say! It is always my position that I can always learn more, about anything and I am always pleased to gather as much information as possible on any given subject that I might take interest in. However, this information must be presented with some sort of objectivity, free of bias, at least as much as possible. We all have our preferences, however to move forward we must see all points of view, then these must be reviewed, logged, and taken in. Some will be discounted for sure. Some will not. With these perspectives taken into consideration I have to deem whatever information you have on the given subject as soiled and inconsequential because of the EXTREME bias you have on the subject. As you have so eloquently put posts in the past, your work is discredited, invalid, and totally worthless to anyone who would like to assimilate knowledge on this subject because you have only 1 opinion, and not able to have reasonable discussion.

The very best you can do is say that this is what has been used for 110 years, and we don't need to re-invent the wheel? That's it? This is the best you can do????? Damn sure glad that most folks don't think that way. With comments like that how in the world do you think anyone could have respect for that attitude? Thank you, but No thanks.

Michael

I guess observed, actual, real world results and field tests in elephants and buff, dead and alive, are deemed invalid and discredited by you because they reveal actual results contrary to the results your so called "tests" produce.

You accuse me of bias for drawing conclusions on bullet performance based on actual real world results with those bullets in real buff and elephants, dead and alive.

But your so called tests, which cannot accurately predict real results and instead produce results contrary to real results are valid?

You are unbiased because you cling to false conclusions based on so called "tests", which cannot predict actual real world results and which produce results contrary to actual results?

This is the gist of your ludicrous reasoning.

Hmm, my thought is that there aren't enough emoticons available to express my opinion of your reasoning, but I'll try:

JPK

Hey Guys, Stop the bickering as I see no good reason for two guy as passionate in African big game and what it represents to not get along.
Hell I'm still trying to work out what its all about...
Now to what hunt is next and with what equipment is more fun to read about.

JPK
Same old Same.

Michael

RIP

Good to hear from you. I doubt some of these folks here know who Ross Seyfried is. I think some are carry overs from other forums, and not really shooters, and do not live in a shooters world. I think the opinion of Ross Seyfried would weigh rather heavy in this arena.

While I have not used either in tests or the field, the GSC or the North Fork bullets I certainly would accept your word and that of Ross concerning the performance. Of course if I were to decide to use them someday I would also put them thru the wringer for my own purpose, and I am quite sure they would come out the other side shining!

I can share one of the things I have been thinking about recently concerning the round nose/flat nose debate. If you recall I did test work some years ago with several types of common round nose solids and fmj bullets in several calibers, all in straight wet news print and nothing more. This ranged from .358 caliber up to 474 caliber. Being a 358 fan and using a Win M70 358 STA extensively all over the world I wanted to have on hand a good bullet that would penetrate deep should I need it while in the bush for other critters. The 358 caliber 310 gr Woodleigh fit the bill on that one perfectly. At a modest 2400 fps they would zip right thru the news print like hot butter, along with every other round nose solid or fmj tested, Hornady, Woodleigh, Barnes. When I injected a little denser material, the catalog mix, then these bullets went all to hell, zipping around in all directions. I am thinking it did not take very much to stress them into some rather odd behavior! I mean I did not have to inject very much at all to have them go nuts, no rocks, no wood inserts, just a few wet catalogs and they are done. Like I said, you can't be too easy on the bullet, and you must put stress on it to understand it's behavior and what it can or cannot do!

Any one ever shoot any competition rifle or handgun matches? I did in my youth, it was a great learning experience. In other arenas I have been trained by the very best, and worked with the very best in other areas of shooting. But in particular concerning the matches there was always a phenomenon among a few shooters that I found very interesting. Most of what we were doing at that time was with semi-auto handguns and rifles. Some always had a pet handgun. The subject was always function first and foremost. Function was everything, other concerns were far behind. Gun does not function will loose match, and get you killed on the street. I have heard many times over and over from different people, "My gun has never malfunctioned, never failed to feed". Wow, that is great, that's the way it is supposed to be. However, the problem is that just last week on a run I watched the same gun malfunction not once but several times?? But now my boy says it has NEVER malfunctioned????
OK, when questioned about this it was always the load, the bullet, the magazine, the wind blowing and the angels singing---anything but the gun! The gun was a holy grail--it could not possibly fail in any way. I found that strange and bewildering to say the least. I had many handguns, many that I had as pets too--but if the damn thing would not work it soon hit the road if the gunsmith could not correct the issue! Of course at some point or another these sort of things happen, extractors wear out, springs these sort of things. I have one 45 acp that has documented over 25'000 rounds shot thru it, by me, and I quit keeping up with that. I wore many parts out over a short period of time on that gun. However when it broke it got fixed and shot a lot before it was depended upon again--more "So Called Test Work"...... I contend this sort of attitude towards certain things, guns, bullets what have you can carry over into other avenues. Some will always say "My gun never malfunctions" "My bullet never Fails"
And there will be nothing anyone could ever do or say, or prove in any way to sort the matter out. The objectivity has been long lost in some sort of notion that a particular inanimate object can never fail them in any way, therefore clinging to that thought process in which to ease certain insecurities. Anyway, that's all I can figure.

Rip is is refreshing to hear that my essay concerning the history of JPKs ancestors did not go unnoticed, and is understood by some of those in the know. If the debate goes as is then according to some what has been perfect for 110 years should stand and there would be no reason to move ahead any further. Wow, don't get that at all? With that logic then we would soon devolve backwards to muzzleloaders and round balls! If round nose is good---Round Ball should be great? Then further regress all the way back to big heavy clubs and chunking rocks! I am pleased you did read the posts, and understand them--at one point I thought they were lost on, well let's say the less informed of the group.

Please you must keep me informed with what you have been doing with the "Iron WaterBoard Buffalo" of late! In addition I would like to communicate with you concerning any data we might could share,and work on new projects. Who knows, we might just learn something?

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
Ripp,

Hornaday softs are not steel jacketed, only the solids.

JPK

According to Hornady both the Solid and the Expanding DGS are both Steel Jacketed

quote:

Hornady's NEW Dangerous Game Series™ ammunition sets the standard for safari hunters with the introduction of the best dangerous game bullets on the market today - the DGS (Dangerous Game Solid) and the DGX (Dangerous Game eXpanding). Both bullets feature an extremely tough alloy core surrounded by a copper clad steel jacket. Additionally, these NEW bullets feature a flat meplat for straighter penetration and afford more energy transfer than a simple round profile

http://www.hornady.com/story.php?s=769

Jwp475

Hey thanks for that information. To be honest I had paid little attention to the adverts, as we all know regardless of product there is always a lot of hype involved. Nor was it very important to me at the time I was testing, would rather have learned that on my own without bias.

I find it extremely interesting the comment about "flat meplat for straighter penetration" and "more energy transfer than a ""Simple"" round profile"!

Of course I believe in those words. I think in the case of the Hornady Solid the meplat is not quite large enough as is to benefit in the straighter penetration department when under heavy stress, a little larger meplat is needed, but I am sure that there is an increase in energy transfer. A larger meplat would increase that portion of the statement, in addition to straighter penetration. They are on the right track. But must also remember they are making the bullets for the masses, they must feed proper through most rifle actions, namely bolt guns, in addition to other type actions. I can assure you that I have some rifles that are very sensitive to the large flat meplat.

I would guess (only a guess mind you-backed by nothing) that Hornady has tested these bullets against the old time standards in a medium that is less stressful than what I have been using, but yet stressful enough to show the difference between the new DG solid and the round nose standards. Probably ballistic gel or possibly Richard Manns bullet tube method. I cannot attest to that, but I would wager that they did some test work before hitting the market with them. Hornady is not a foolish company and they are extremely innovative in the market place. I love most of their products and have used the interlocks for many different applications.

Although I understand that this was not the point of your posting this information, I merely wanted to point to the extra benefit of your post, thank you.

Michael

ozhunter

Ditto on what hunt is next and what equipment!

I am working on those very things right now, and it is far more fun. For me that is one of the great things about the hunt, and a very important part of it.

Michael

Here's the part I don't understand? If I'm going to Africa on a DG Hunt and spending $35000.00 or more for the Hunt, do i want to save a few $$ on Bullets? I would use Factory Ammo with Swift A-Frames or Barnes Soilds or Speer Trophy Bonded Bullets, or Handload these Bullets if I felt I wanted reloads. Maybe practice with the cheaper Bullets if the POI was the same as factory ammo? I doubt anyone will ever make a Bullet that will out preform the Swift, Barnes, or Speer Trophy Bonded Bullets. Just my 2 cents worth

Larry,
I tried some of that expensive 470NE factory ammo and found that it was lacking a couple hundred fps in velocity.
Ill stick to premium hand loads, and after all how long does it take to make up twenty to forty well made rounds and then duplicate the precise load years later.
Also I would be happy to use any of your stated projectiles plus some.

I agree. I will give up a little Velocity to gain some accuracy. Boils down to better a good hit with a .375 than a poor hit with a .470

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
Ripp,

Hornaday softs are not steel jacketed, only the solids.

JPK

According to Hornady both the Solid and the Expanding DGS are both Steel Jacketed

quote:

Hornady's NEW Dangerous Game Series™ ammunition sets the standard for safari hunters with the introduction of the best dangerous game bullets on the market today - the DGS (Dangerous Game Solid) and the DGX (Dangerous Game eXpanding). Both bullets feature an extremely tough alloy core surrounded by a copper clad steel jacket. Additionally, these NEW bullets feature a flat meplat for straighter penetration and afford more energy transfer than a simple round profile

http://www.hornady.com/story.php?s=769

jwp475,
Thanks for correcting JPK while I slept.
I did not mean to get off on a barrel-gentle-bullets tangent, but that is a side issue involving steady diets of steel-jacketed bullets in double rifles.

JPK,
You can call me Rip, or you can call me Ripp, but you doesn't has to call me Ripe.

michael458,
I am getting sensitive about disparagement of my IWBB test results. Will have to go underground for now, but I do forsee trying the 12GaFH against the IWBB. Will compare .729/1085-grain brass Darwins, .730/1400-ish-grain lead Darwins, and .729/400-ish-grain aluminum Darwins (as long as Robgunbuilder doesn't make them from unobtanium in the future) at various velocities, for penetration and structural integrity in the IWBB.
It is a yardstick of some use, alternating 1" thickness of plywood boards and 7" thickness of water in plastic "waterbaskets" out to 100+ inches, in a stainless steel frame, sitting on a picnic table.
Might have to go to 1.5" wood/6.5" water for a tougher-than-your-average-elephant-shot medium.

To Hornady:

Dear Sirs,
I love your company and all the innovations and revivals in brass and cartridges, cutting edge new and classic nostalgic both. You breathe new life into the sporting firearms industry.

However:
Why the heck can't you get the bullets right?

Sincerely,
Ripp