Lawndart!

To get back to your original question, I have been looking into the field performance of the new Hornady DGS and DGX bullets for an upcoming article in AH Magazine. I pay little attention to tests of bullets in simulated media as actual field reports of their use seems to me to be what in the final analysis is what we want to know. Initial reports of the Hornady DGS solid look very promising. But, we need many more reports before we can comfortably predict how good they will be. One of the problems is that when we get early reports they are for one or two calibers. The same bullet design in two different calibers may perform differently. Such things as barrel twist, velocity and bullet construction may influence how the bullet reacts to soft or hard tissue. Early reports also are necessarily of small sample sizes which means that where the bullet hit may indicate one level of performance while a different bullet path may lead to a different performance level. As I said the initial reports are positive but we need many more before we can reliably rate these bullets.
I haven't seen enough reports of the DGX to have formed even an initial opinion. So to sum it up I would say that the jury is still out on these bullets.

465H&H

My son shot a cow elephant with the 300 grain DGS (375 Ruger) and had complete straight line penetration over four ft angling through the first cervical vertebra and through the far shoulder. I'm sold on the solids, no experience with the DGX.

Dirk

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_Helm:
I think I would settle for the North Fork over the Shoot-A-Frame, so long as the quality is still what it was...

I think North fork was on the right track except for the monometal end of the bullet.I believe they had the right copper and lead and fusion method.BTW,Thcaikovsy's dance of the flowers is really something!

[URL= ]bullet design[/URL] RIP,here's an idea.I'am sure someone or myself could come up with better ones.So,we need a REAL bullet,a good action(like the m70),a good trigger(mod 70 or Ruger) and stock design,good sights(??),quality barrel and then you need a SHOOTER.Good music too and good beer!

did he take an 8 ball?

Hi guys,

I put Shootaway on ignore long ago. I lose a little entertainment, I guess, but I have gained, gained a lot...

I'll wait another year before I load these for anyone. No experiments with buff or ele.

Hi RIP, my dissolute older brother. The new North Fork softs are the same as ever; awesome. Just like Mike (Brady)told me, I think they are finding that the monometal solids are a different type of cat entirely. After cutting them they have to be tumbled in ceramic media just long enough so that they get along with your barrel. The GSC flats have shallow bands; the seem to either fly very straight, except when they fly sideways.

We have to be verrrrry careful what we feed to double rifles. That is what prompted my first question. RIP brings up a most important point; if you shove too stiff a bullet down your double rifle (and this includes Swift A-Frames) you can shoot it out of regulation in the first practice section.

It might be instructive to look at the guts of all these bullets side by side by side.

Another important point was raised earlier in the thread (and I apologize for not scrolling back up for attribution) is that each caliber is also different. The first choice of the old gunmakers (who knew much more than I can ever hope to) was the 450. That seems like an optimum bullet to my partially trained eyes.

So, I'll narrow my original question to the 450.

JDK, instead of arguing, look at Michael's studies and learn some things. I have. Just try it for one day: shut mouth, open eyes, learn and then ponder (long before the fray).

Hi 465! My bones are awefully cold this week, Yours?

LD

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
did he take an 8 ball?

Do you mean, "Is he an 8 ball?"

quote:

However if I were to use broze bullets with flat noses,then I have issues.

Then by all means, please don't use those kinds of bullets!

Lawndart!

Looking at the weather report for the next week, your bones are going to get even colder!!!!

465H&H

Bro' Doctor Dart,
Good to hear from you, as always.
You, Jim Manion, and Dennis Miller are the only 400-pound gorillas of wit that I know.

Hornady does make some good muzzleloader bullets, for sure.
This one killed Bambi today.
Went in at the left shoulder near the base of the neck and stopped under the skin of the right buttock/ham.
Bambi looked like he had a tracheostomy and a cyst on his butt.
I sliced the skin of his butt and found the base of this bullet shining forth, over 3 feet of penetration on the soft, succulent button buck, yummy.
You can see that the folded-back petals bent forward after the bullet flipped over under the skin of Bambi's butt.
Nominal 300-grain bullet shown weighed 300.1 grains.
Recovered bullet weighed 259.3 grains.
.453" diameter expanded to .992".
This is a Hornady bullet perfect for its purpose:

quote:

JDK, instead of arguing, look at Michael's studies and learn some things. I have. Just try it for one day: shut mouth, open eyes, learn and then ponder (long before the fray).

There is nothing to be learned about either round nose solid or flat nose solid bullet performance in elephant heads from shooting them into wet paper.

Worse, what one might derive from doing so is contrary to real, actual results achieved in elephant heads.

If you doubt what I say, go shoot sixty of each into elephant heads, as I have, and report back.

JPK

Lawndart -- Good to see you around. Hope you are well.

Hi Charles,

As soon as the FDA releases the darned chemotherapy I'll be hell on wheels. Until then I have to continue to take it very slowly .

RIP,

When I get more mended, I'll give you a call about locum tenens work. The clinic has been good, but I can hardly wait to move around more (as if I have a choice). I'm thinking about Air Force Bases and Army Posts. Reservation clinics and hospitals would be fine so long as none of the tribal council members are pressuring me to keep feeding one of their errant relatives recreational supplies of oxycodone. That clouds the scenery at a nearby reservation. BTW, nice work with the Hornady on that deer. I'm working with my insurance guy to clear the way for that blessed 06 FFL, so I should finally be able to load on a grander scale, to include your line. Sinclair has come/is coming out with a nice line of mandrels from .358 up to .510. I just got some .366 turning and expanding mandrels. Now I can manufacture 9.3 by whatever without running the new brass through a full length sizer. The new mandrel holders also "float" slightly on a buna rubber ring in the screw on cap to help them freely align with the center line (so to speak). Hmmmmmm, freely align with the center line.

JPK,

Ok then, I'll put you on ignore. You write like a troll much more than anyone who has killed 60+ elephants. The guys who do it for real tend to be men of fewer, and better chosen words. Post pictures, or shut up.

RIP

As always an excellent report on the hornady muzzleloader bullet. A friend of mine was asking about those the other day, but I had no "solid" (heh) information on them. Looks like they did a jam up job.

Lawndart

Very sorry to hear of your issues, sincerely hope all goes well.

I also appreciate your opinion and support. I also wish to apologize for allowing this thread, which you started, to be highjacked into a less than desirable direction.

Not too long ago one of the publishers brought out a book with some of the selected articles from Finn Aagaard (always one of my heros in the shooting world). I dragged it out and read some of those articles again yesterday afternoon (I must say within the gazebo, next to the pool, in a very nice 75 degrees with a slight breeze, along with an ice cold bud-speaking of weather).
I of course was drawn to the articles in which Finn was doing test work with various bullets. I am quite sure with this being a forum of "mostly" shooters that many of you have this, if not it is a great resource, and of course Finn was one of the great writers in my opinion.
Thanks
Michael

Lawndart,

You wrote:

quote:

JPK,

Ok then, I'll put you on ignore. You write like a troll much more than anyone who has killed 60+ elephants. The guys who do it for real tend to be men of fewer, and better chosen words. Post pictures, or shut up.

I believe that your judgement of my writing is seriously effected by your reading comprehension deficiencies.

I wrote, "...go shoot sixty of each into elephant heads, as I have..."

Referring to sixty round nose, steel jacketed solids and sixty flat nose, truncated cone, driving band, solid copper bullets.

I have shot eighteen elephants.

I will posts photos of all of them if you will agree to then appologize and follow your own advice.

Or, go to African Hunting Reports here on AR and do a search under my screen name. You will find four reports and, within them, photos of the eighteen elephants I have killed.

So, when 465H&H wrote, in this thread, that he had shot 150 round nose steel jacketed bullets into elephants, did you really think he had shot 150 elephants?

JPK

I can only assume that I must have "reading comprehension deficiencies" in addition to possible math comprehension deficiencies.

Concerning the post from 465 I read "90" not the 150 stated? This is on the first page of this thread 30th post, unless I did not count correctly. Of course the number could have grown from page one depending on the math and the reading comprehension issue?

Strictly from a "science" related point of view as I count now some 120 bullets being shot into 18 heads, discounting reading and math comprehension deficiencies and possible spelling deficiencies to cover all bases. As I calculate that is 6.666 bullets per single medium without changing medium in between shots?
I see some consistency issues that could be brought up concerning this. Concerning another matter related to this--no two field mediums being the same also brings consistency into question. A smallish head of a tuskless is another creature altogether than that of a big bull? Do not forget, I have been there done that and have seen both, and have studied both types of medium. While such tests have validity with some researchers, it requires an unbiased opinion on the study to recognize both the pros and cons of said study, and to be able to add this to other data gathered in other mediums and other studies. Here is where we have some researchers with only one study, and unable to comprehend the value of other studies concerning the subject, in which to give us a well rounded, intelligent opinion on a given subject. While here in this very thread we have the opportunity to learn greatly from several studies, from RIP and his work, from yours truly and my work not only in the lab but in the field, and of course from others field work. To discount any of the work, is to be merely a fool. I see very few individuals who would fit that profile here. I can only discount studies that show bias opinions. One must absolutely look at said subject from ALL sides, all aspects.

This being said at the great risk of starting another match, that I refuse to get involved in "directly" with those of "one sided" opinions that cannot be discussed in any intelligent manner. Therefore I will no longer address said individuals in a direct manner.

Michael

RIP,that recovered bullet does not look perfect to me.Like I said,Hornady is not famous for quality.

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
did he take an 8 ball?

Do you mean, "Is he an 8 ball?"

i meant to infer he's on drugs...

Micheal458,

You got me on miss quoting 465H&H, he referred to shooting 90 round nose, steel jacketed solids into elephants and not 150. My (insignificant) error.

You continue to try to portray me as biased and unwilling to consider new information. This is far from reality. I am open to any relevant information. Information on penetration in, say, buff or giraffe, hippo, all useful, all relevant. But not wet paper. Biased, no, just reporting on actual results and field test results in relevant media, my own results and others. Opinions formed from same.

You seem to keep forgetting that I am a fan of flat nose solids and use them for elephant hunting, and buff hunting too. I am unbiased regarding the choice of truncated cone, flat nose, copper solids and round nose steel jacket solids for elephants, or was, until I had a couple of the flat noses veer of course this year - on bulls. Something which has never occured with a Woodleigh round nose steel jacketed solid. So while I remain a huge fan, I an wary of their use on bulls for the first (brain) shot. But because of their awesome penetration, I use them for the second barrel.

BTW, I also mistated my own shooting in my last post. I should have written, "...sixty of each into elephants..." Not every bullet was shot into an elephant head, a fair number were shot into elephant bodies.

Your concern regarding the integrity of the elephant head when more than one shot is made into it was a concern of mine, at first. But results indicate that penetration of first and subsequent like bullets at like velocities shot into an elephant's head are essentially equal for the shots I would take into a particular elephant head, so long as the spacing was kept at three inches or so, so the bullet didn't travel the previous wound channel. (I haven't actually shot a bullet into a previous wound channel to see if penetration would change, btw.) Penetration remains essentially equal when a bullet misses the actual brain cavity high as well, indicating to me that penetrating the cavity itself doesn't add to or subtract from a bullet's penetration, it is the bone, meat, skin, etc encountered in front of and behind the cavity.

I have so far found no significant difference in penetration in bulls vs cows for either head shots or body shots when tusks or shoulder blades, spines, other heavy bone are not encountered. I do not have adequate comparative shots for when shoulder blades or spine are involved. Tusks mangle truncated cone solid copper flat noses and cause them to veer as well, but I don't hold that against the flat noses or count the veering amoungst the incidences that have cause concern. I haven't managed to shoot a tusk with a Woodleigh, but I can imagine that results would be much the same. The lesson here is don't shoot the tusk to begin with.

So, to sum up my tests, for my hunting shots into live elephants, which are also test shots, and subsequent test shots made into the dead elephants, penetration of like bullets at like velocities is consistent and repeatable and results have 100% correlation to real life penetration results. 100% correlation to and accurate prediction of real life results serve to validate any tests. In fact a signficant numbers of the test shots, the fist shots and sometimes the second shots, are real life hunting shots.

This differs from your so called tests, which cannot predict actual field results in the only relavent medium, elephants. Moreover, your tests predict that round nose, steel jacketed solids will not penetrate straight, contrary to actual field results - real empirical evidence - which prove otherwise.

Why is this so difficult for you to accept?

JPK

In the late 1970's and early 1980's I shot some weatherby 460 factory laods which had steel jacketed copper clad bullets made, I was told, by Weatherby.

My long time family freind, General Robert Scott (african hunter and author of God Is My copilot), was a good freind of Roy Weatherby, and that is what Roy told Bob Scott.

They held to a magnet.

Anway, even at 460 we velocity they barely expanded on american bison.

shot a couple boxes worth.

Not so different from the DGX of today.

Especially with a high antimony lead rather than pure lead. They really dont want that bullet to expand!!!!!

Gusess I would not call the DGX an expanding bullet.

Andy

Hey JPK

Good morning from down south!

Our issue has more to do with test medium than with bullet prejudices. It always has, and I suspect we will continue to have a differing opinion on this matter. Also I suspect that another component of the problem is my long essays doing my best to explain my mission at hand. I am not trying to be ugly here, but in some such long dissertations you might be missing the point. However, it is the way I am, not much to do about it, so just try to read carefully, read twice, maybe 3 times to grasp the matter and exactly what I am trying to convey. I will try to do so 1 step at a time.

First, all test work, ALL-has relevance regardless of medium, in some area. As explained before shooting 2 inch steel plates is great, but I do not think has relevance in our mission here as none of our solids we might use, or soft points can penetrate that, and we are not shooting armored cars. However, in other areas this test has great relevance. Shooting concrete blocks is the same. It has relevance in some arena of shooting.

Wet news print, or phonebooks, does have direct correlation to what we do as hunters/shooters in the study of terminal ballistics. As does other mediums for test work, such as ballistic gel. I follow in the footsteps of greats such as Finn Aagaard and Ross Seyfried. Two men that I have the upmost respect for, and while I follow in their footsteps, I in no way can ever have all the well rounded knowledge of those two combined. Finn tested in phonebooks wet and dry, sometimes a combination of both. Ross Seyfried once said that wet newsprint was the absolute finest indicator of bullet behavior and terminal ballistics ever tested. I concur with both these fine gentlemen, that have far more knowledge on the subject than I can ever hope to obtain, both in the field and on the range!

JPK, wet print tests with expanding bullets are very relevant. As stated before I have 100s of bullets tested in wet print medium, and in every case those that are found in animal tissue correlate directly to what I have found in the test work. Very nearly exactly in most cases, taken into account the fact that some bone contacted in animal flesh can distort bullets.

JPK, Solids are a different animal all together. Please take note here as to my observations. I think you will find that we are not in disagreement if you will please read carefully.

I started getting serious about testing solids in 2006 with my various .500 caliber cartridges. Now all prepare yourselves to take a little time, because this ain't gonna be short! I don't know how, and I type rather fast anyway, so sometimes I don't know how much I have until it is done, and then on top of that these lengthy statements explaining why it is so long also takes up space!

1. In 2006 I needed or desired a proper solid bullet for .500 caliber that I could rely upon to backup expanding bullets on the heavies, buffalo, hippo, elephant. Of course there were none at that time.

2. I had always used in the past the Barnes RN solids with great effect, no issues. I also needed to feed bolt guns, so reliability was of great importance. Since this the case we started designing a good round nose solid, and the first 50s had 1:18 twist rates. I had shot several 1000 rounds doing the initial test work and load data, accuracy at 1:18 was never an issue. Our first designed solids were light for caliber at 408 grs, round nose brass. I had been testing the expanding bullets extensively to find out at what velocity most would work and not work well. I started putting a few of the new round nose solids in the mix and what I found I IGNORED! I could not keep them in the box! But I ignored these tests, falling back on my field experience with round nose solids and discounted my own test work!!!! I made excuses to myself, something to the effect that these tests were not relevant with solids because of my field experience telling me a different story!!! Please JPK--read very carefully the above statements!!!!!!!

That year I took the first prototype 50s to South Africa for their first outings to the field. I promise you I was on a test mission and not a hunting trip! I only allowed 5 days for this mission and in those 5 days I shot 20 different animals with 7 different bullets from impala to giraffe. Most all tests were successful, but I noticed some serious issues with my little round nose solid. Entrance holes did not correlate with exit holes in the aspect that I thought said animal was at the time of shooting? In some instances we actually saw some solids exit and hit trees nearby at extremely odd angles? I had some very nagging thoughts concerning this.

Once back home I called JD and Brian at SSK and we discussed at length some of the issues and very quickly got a 1:12 twist barrel completed. Very nearly at this time I discovered that the bullets could be done in another copper alloy material that increased the weight by 5% over the solid brass. I then added 2/10ths of an inch to the base of the bullet now bringing the total weight up to 512 grains, still round nose profile, very near or very much like the Woodleigh RN. I had very high expectations for this, and figured the issue done.

The 1:12 twist made a great deal of difference, I was able to keep the 512 gr bullet in the box, and it did very well to 90% of it's total penetration before starting to veer as it lost steam, and lost stability. Basically I was pretty much convinced that we were about as good as it was going to get with this caliber. Penetration was 43-45 inches in this medium, straight to 90% of that! I figured at this it would be more than enough to do the job.

However, I wanted to experiment just a bit more, maybe tweak the bullet a little. Going back in my test history I suddenly remembered the test work with 45/70 and the big flat nose cast bullets. I was also just beginning to look at the Barnes Banded Solids in other calibers. In particular in my 458 B&M the 450 Barnes Banded solid was kicking the crap out of my .500s in deep straight line penetration in the box? Still had a nagging feeling, so I commissioned my bullet man to make 5 examples of flat nose bullets for test work. 1 design was to merely flatten the nose of the 512 gr bullet we already had, I requested a .300 caliber meplat so that it would feed proper in the bolt guns. I then requested a Barnes type profile bullet, then I requested 3 other designs of JD's going back on his experience with various designs he has done for the JDJ cartridges. I requested 50 each to test with.

Somewhere along the lines there was a mix up in the weight of the bullets when they arrived. The original 512 bullet with a meplat of .300 came in at 440 grs, missing 1/10th the overall length--the Barnes profile came in at 467 grs, JD's designs came in at 450 and 455 grs. There were only two of these, one with 3 small cuts in the meplat, the other with just a solid meplat. JD did not tell me what the cuts were for? I promise I did not guess correct on that either!

Now if you look back in my notes at the time before test work on these bullets I plainly state my preferences for the Round Nose bullet, and that I was only trying to tweak the bullet a bit and that I did not believe the flat meplat would be of any significant value. And now that the bullets came in light and sectional density was now much lower than that of the original 512 gr round nose that I would continue with the test but it would have only relevance from one bullet profile to the next, and very little relevance to the heavy 512 gr round nose bullet! This is stated in my load data notes at the time. So clearly I was of a mind set that this was going to be of little relevance!

Since I had no load data on these weight bullets I was "shooting in the dark" so to speak. I loaded up and went out back to the box! I tested the original bullet with the .300 meplat first. I was astounded at what I discovered! 63 inches of dead straight penetration? How could this be? This bullet weighed 440 grs as compared to the RN at 512 grs???? Next was the Barnes profile, again astounded at the results, 64 inches, one out the back of the box????? This weighed in at 467 grs--could not be???? Sectional density was far less, dead straight penetration, velocities were 2100-2150 fps. The ones that JD designed without the cuts in the meplat would drive to 55 inches dead straight--now the best I had done with the 512 RN bullet was 45 inches, and the last 10% veering off course????? I repeated the tests at slightly higher velocity and obtained the same results, then repeated again, same story.

I came to the conclusion (somewhat against my will) that NOSE PROFILE is everything! Flat nose does better than round nose end of story! I did not come to the conclusion that ROUND NOSE WOULD NOT DO THE JOB----But that there were better profiles to be had...... JPK--Read Carefully---I did not conclude that RN would not be sufficient only that other nose profiles could provide better performance!!! I also concluded at that time that while sectional density is a factor, it is perhaps overshadowed by nose profile!!!!! In addition I concluded that ALL FLAT NOSE PROFILES ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL!!!!!!!!!!

The issues with the very first light round nose bullets I tested in the box and in the field I can attribute greatly to twist rate and stabilization of the round nose bullets during penetration. Tests with the faster 1:12 twist rate did stabilize the bullet during penetration to 90% of it's total penetration, which I believe is plenty of penetration to work on elephant heads, even though I strongly believe that the flatter nose profile will do a better job! PLEASE READ THAT AND PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND AND HAVE READ THIS...

After these preliminary tests I commissioned to have some bullets made, for my own purposes, and for field trials. I now have a 510 gr barnes type FN profile, a 485 gr with a .300 meplat from the original 512 gr RN, a 455 gr FN profile of JD's---all of which have now been used in the field on elephant and buffalo with great success. Currently in a larger .500 caliber cartridge I have extended the 510 gr bullet to come out at 550 grains. In this cartridge (until I busted the original stock) I was able to obtain 2150 fps with the 550 gr bullet in the first generation loads (meaning the first test loads for load data) The rifle is a 21 inch Winchester M70 at 8 lbs. The cartridge is a full length Ultra case. I suspect I can get a bit more velocity, but when I take this to the field it will most likely be 2150 fps as that is more than enough to accomplish any mission I might have for it. I receive this rifle back today in fact with a repaired stock! Fun!

I have done some other test work in other calibers and continue to do so. In fact I have had some scheduled for the last couple of weeks but have been too lazy to get to it. What I have found is hard to assimilate but I am still working on it: Not all calibers are equal, not all velocities are equal, not all flat nose meplats are equal, not all round nose profiles are equal, nose profile in some instances is more important than sectional density, not all materials or metallurgy is equal and above all while I have some opinions on the subject I am far from having 100% comprehension of all there is to learn about solids, and will strive for my own purposes, not that of others, to continue to have an open mind and learn as much as I can.

In conclusion of this very long once again dissertation for which I apologize to all. This is MY OPINION only--it is worth what you pay for it--and it is for MY PURPOSES only. It is not to state that one bullet is better than another-although one might conclude that-it is NOT to say that "A PARTICULAR BULLET THAT FAILS MY TEST WORK WILL NOT ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION ASKED OF IT IN THE FIELD"-----period! As I myself believe that the rn design still will accomplish the mission asked of it, just that other designs may do it better. Please read-please acknowledge.

If you recall in previous posts I state that it is my MISSION to stress these bullets to the point of which it will fail. Therefore in my opinion a bullet that will do well in the tests-will also do well in the field. This has direct relevance as I have done this. The tests I have conducted gave me a choice of performance, I chose a particular bullet that did extremely well in the test work, and in the field it did extremely well on elephant and buffalo--not once but several times.

You may see that as contradictory, I do not. It may be we have different mind sets is all. The relevance of the tests to the field operations are this very simply: Not that one bullet fails the test and will fail the field; but that one bullet that does well in the tests, also does well in the field!

This applies to Solid Bullets only--not to expanding bullets-which I have learned do not play by the same rules as expanding bullets.

I state for the record---My tests do NOT predict that a round nose bullet, or any bullet that fails the tests will fail in the field.

I state for the record---A bullet that DOES perform well in the test will perform well in the field!

This has been my stand on the subject from the beginning, but it does not seem to get across to all, therefore seeming contradictory to those who do not understand, but in reality is not.

Is that so difficult to understand????? I have not succeeded in getting my message across as of yet, just read what I say, and try to understand what I am trying to say.

Thanks, and I apologize for my lengthy posts, however I feel we have a long way to go and it is an important discussion, and a important topic that we all need to understand better.

Please, I have not taken the time to go over this post, if there are mistakes in grammar or misspellings please forgive. I really must get to work right now.

Michael

I've shot them target shooting but not on game in my 416 Rem. They all went right to where I aimed at. When I was in Africa I used my 300 RUM
for plains game. I killed 4 animals.

Michael458,

Despite what you write now, in your first post on this thread, and several others as well, you repeatedly try to extend your so called tests to the real world, and to use your so called tests to pedict real world results. But your so called tests cannot predict real world results and instead predict results contrary to actual real world results.

A valid tests predicts real world results. Your test cannot predict real world results and instead predicts results contrary to real world results. Ergo, your test is invallid for prediting real world results, and predictions made, inferences drawn from your tests are equally invalid. Real world here = actual round nose, steel jacketed solid performance on elephants (or buff, hippo, etc) and relative performance of all solids on elephants (buff, hippo, etc.)

This conclusion is ineascapable.

JPK

JPK

The only conclusions I know for a fact that are inescapable are the conclusions that I can now conclude concerning you!

I can also inescapably conclude that there is no longer any point to attempting to have any sort of reasonable, logical discussion with you.

Those are two inescapable conclusions!

Please, do not let me waste anymore of your time, nor mine. Nor do I need you wasting anymore of my time.

Michael

JPK:

I am a bit confused. Short of actual field performance, are there any "tests" that you consider valid. Seems to me that shooting different bullets into a consistent media like ballistic gelatin, wet newprint, wet phone books, etc., should give you a reliable indication of how they perform relative on one another shouldn't it?

Dave

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
JPK:

I am a bit confused. Short of actual field performance, are there any "tests" that you consider valid. Seems to me that shooting different bullets into a consistent media like ballistic gelatin, wet newprint, wet phone books, etc., should give you a reliable indication of how they perform relative on one another shouldn't it?

Dave

Dave Bush,

Ballistic gelatin, a few other substitute materials, yes, but not wet newsprint, catalogs, phone books. Results from wet paper contradict actual results.

Regarding the debate, discussion, arguement going on here in this thread, for instance, the issue boils down to this:

Relying on his so called tests, Michael458 has attempted to predict the real world performance of several shapes of solids. But his wet paper test results do not reflect actual real world results and actually contradict them.

The real world results cannot be invallid, they are what they are. So Michael458's test, and so his test medium, must be invalid, since it cannot predict and actually contradicts real world results.

Examples of contradictory results Michael458's tests vs real world results:

Michael458's tests predict that:

1.) Round nose, steel jacketd solids will not provide reliable straight line penetration. They don't in his tests, but they do in the real world. (For support of this contention, read this thread and follow other cites contained within this thread.) This point is the main point of contention in this thread.

2.) Flat nose solids always penetrate straight. The do in his tests but they do not always penetrate straight in the real world. (For support of this contention, read my posts in this thread. I've had four veer. One significantly, three less so.)

3.) Flat nose solids will always outpenetrate round nose, steel jacketed solids. They do in his test but they don't in the real world. Flat noses do outpenetrate the round noses for the most part - but not when the flat noses veer and not always if the flat nose severly bend or rivet!

4.) The new, new Hornaday flat nose round nose ogived steel jacket solids will not provide reliable straight line penetration in the real world. They don't in his test but reports from the field are promising. Not enough results from the fieled or field tests, or relevant tests - in ballistic gelatin for example - to be conclusive.

JPK

michael458

I don't know how you came up with only 18 heads for the sample size. In my case, the 90+ bullets were fired into a total of 45 elephants and buffalo in addition to what ever JPK's sample size is.

I believe that simulated media may have some value. It should be obvious that the simulated media in current use do not mimick the reults of bullets fired into real buffalo or elephant. But they may be useful in comparing the depth of penetration between various truncated cone FN solids. It may also have some value in comparing frangability and penetration when using soft point bullets. It seems to me that those interested in using simulated media need to find a medium that will mimick RN solid penetration in game. That appears to be the challenge.

465H&H

JPK:

This has been an interesting argument.

I think that in order to conduct a valid test, it doesn't make much difference if you use ballistic gelatin or wet newsprint. The key is consistency, shooting different bullets into the SAME MEDIA at about the SAME VELOCITY. These tests should at least be instructive of actual field performance but remember, it's in the field where all the variables come into play. It's hard to suggest that because bullet A veered off course in the skull of one elephant on a particular occasion that it is inferior to bullet B that did not in another elephant at a different angle on another occasion. I have never heard of anyone suggesting a consistent pattern of failure with either type. I think that there is some consensus that flat nose solids like the Trophy Bonded Sledgehammer tend to penetrate straighter and deeper than round nose solids. However, I am not sure that it makes much difference. We now have such superb solids like the copper clad steel solids from Woodleigh and Hornaday, the homogenous solids from Barnes and the Trophy Bonded Sledgehamers. They are all up to the task.

Dave

Hey 465

Please read that particular post a bit more careful as being directed to JPK-it was his 18 elephants and 120 rounds that was referred to. The only reference to you in particular was that JPK stated you had shot 150 rounds while you stated that you had shot 90 rounds. I don't recall you ever stating the number of elephants shot, so I have no reference to that.

I have a medium that will allow round nose solids to penetrate straight, it is stated in this thread from tests I did probably 10 yrs ago or so with several round nose bullets, very simply straight wet news print with no magazines or catalogs inserted. All of the present round nose bullets penetrate straight and true in that medium alone. While I have not used solids in ballistic gel I am quite sure that it is easy enough on the bullets that they would do well.

As in some of my other posts I have also stated that it is not my mission to be easy on the bullet, it is my mission to put stress on a particular bullet to the point that it does fail. Reasonable stress (as stated) in my view would be an example of 3 different sort of bullets designed for the same mission statement. If enough stress is added for any particular design to not perform as well as other designs, while some designs may exceed expectations, then I am of the opinion that this particular bullet will exceed in the field also. AGAIN OVER AND OVER AND OVER--it does not mean that the bullet that does not exceed will also fail in the field--it does mean that the very successful bullet has the potential to be successful in the field! As for me, I am going to choose the horse in front to stake my hunt on--not the one that comes in last! That horse in last place may finish the race............but.......???

I do not dispute any of the information you have supplied, 45 elephants and buffalo are a very good sample, and many conclusions can be drawn from this experience. I just don't think that some are understanding, comprehending, or even attempting to comprehend what I am trying to point out. In fact I am not even sure some are reading the post completely. In some cases I am trying to point out desperately that we are in fact in agreement on many points with terminal performance, but for some reason it ends up as an attack on paper???? This is getting to be a rather old story at this point.

Michael

Dave

Here Here!!!!! One has plenty of good choices out there. I happen to choose differently according to both test work and field experience.

Before someone goes nuts, please read carefully first.


Michael

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
JPK:

This has been an interesting argument.

I think that in order to conduct a valid test, it doesn't make much difference if you use ballistic gelatin or wet newsprint. The key is consistency, shooting different bullets into the SAME MEDIA at about the SAME VELOCITY. These tests should at least be instructive of actual field performance but remember, it's in the field where all the variables come into play. It's hard to suggest that because bullet A veered off course in the skull of one elephant on a particular occasion that it is inferior to bullet B that did not in another elephant at a different angle on another occasion. I have never heard of anyone suggesting a consistent pattern of failure with either type. I think that there is some consensus that flat nose solids like the Trophy Bonded Sledgehammer tend to penetrate straighter and deeper than round nose solids. However, I am not sure that it makes much difference. We now have such superb solids like the copper clad steel solids from Woodleigh and Hornaday, the homogenous solids from Barnes and the Trophy Bonded Sledgehamers. They are all up to the task.

Dave

Dave Bush,

Michael458 is one of many here who harbour the mistaken belief that round nose solids do not travel straight in real game in real world hunting and, for this and other reasons, do not provide adequate pentration.

This mistaken belief has other sources, but a prime one is false inferences derived from the erroneous reliance on invalid tests, Miachael 458's tests as examples.

The consensus that you refer to regarding flat nose bullets traveling straighter is one of those false inferences floating around as well. While I believe the jury is still out with regard to flat nose straight line penetration, it isn't with regard to round nose solids, which have proven performance regarding straight line penetration.

Just take a look at the empirical information here, provided by me and 465H&H. Roughly 150 round nose steel jacketed solids shot into 67 elephants and buff. Not one instance of failure to penetrate straight. On the other hand, sixty flat nose, truncated cone copper solids and four instances of failure to penetrate straight. 6.7% veering rate = possible problems with straight penetration.

Consistent, repeatable test results which are not predictive of real life results are useless for predicting real life results. Nothing could be more apparent.

Is any medium that provides results contrary to actual results useful or reliable for providing more limited information, like how far X bullet does at Y velocity penetrate compared to X bullet at Y+Z velocity? I don't think so.

Also, I was suprised to discover how consistent and repeatable results are in elephant heads on frontal brain shots which do not involve heavy bone. With all bullets exiting on side brain shots, except the one flat nose that veered 90* on this shot, it doesn't really matter.

Barnes, Trophy Bonded Sledgehammers - there is widespread belief that these are prone to failure, especially in 375 - are not suitable for double barrel rifles.

But the Woodleighs and North Forks and GS Cutstoms are. I load a Woodleigh solid in the right barrel, because I know that it will provide straight line penetration through bone, where some issues have come up with the copper flat noses, I load copper flat noses for the second barrel because they penetrate so well.

JPK

Michael458,

I read your post.

That is contributing to this arguement. You say one thing in one post and the opposite in another.

Take for example your very first post here on this thread and your most recent post. In the first, you use your invalid test to predict the field performance of the Hornaday flatish nose, new steel jacketed solid, in the most recent you disclaim the first and pretend that you have never attempted to extend your invalid test to draw inferences that bullets that fail your test would fail in the field.

In between you flip one way and then another.

Wet newsprint is an equally invalid test medium as are wet phone books, catalogs or some mixture. Every one produces results contrary to actual results achieved in elephants and buff. Take the Linebough test as an example, do you really contend that a flat nose cast bullet at 45/70 velocity will outpenetrate a 500gr round nose solid at 2150fps in elephant head or bodies? In buff?

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

Barnes, Trophy Bonded Sledgehammers - there is widespread belief that these are prone to failure, especially in 375 - are not suitable for double barrel rifles.

JPK

JPK:

I agree that Woodleigh solids are superb.

I can't respond to your claim about whether or not Barnes or Trophy Bonded solids are suitable for doubles an I readily acknowledge that you have far greater experience than I but I can tell you that I would never hesitate to leave camp with a rifle loaded with a Barnes banded solid or a Trophy Bonded Sledgehammer. In my .500 Jeffery, I think Barnes new 535 grain banded solid is suitable for everything up and including a T-Rex!

This and a glass of fine whiskey are the stuff that make for good campfire discussions. Merry Christmas and good hunting my friend.

Dave

Dave,

The comment regarding a widespread believe that Trophy Bonded Sledgehammers were prone to failure, especially in 375, was not intended to be extended to the Barnes. When I read your post and reread mine I can see the problem with my less than artful drafting, sorry for the confusion.

I wouldn't hesitate to use the Trophy Bonded Sldgehammers in 458. My rifle shoots reasonably well with these, though they are not suitable for it - the solid bases are too hard on the soldered joint between a double's barrels, or so my gunmaker tells me. They are my Plan B if I ever arrive in Africa and my ammo goes missing. You can find the Federals in most decent size or arrival cities in Safari countries, or so it seems. Better to hunt elephants and repair the rifle than to loose time because ammo went missing.

One reason my double rifle is a 458wm, a non traditional cartridge and disliked by the double rifle crowd because of the belted rimless case and the higher pressures.

JPK

Edited to add that Shakiri, a PH who is active on AR, mainly on the African Hunting forum, has reported seeing many failures with the Trophy Bonded solids used by his clients, especially the 375's. He hunts in Botswana and Tanzania for buff and elephants, etc.

Michael458,

You state that your .500, diamter 440 grain solid with a .300 meplat worked great. The 458,500 grain DGS Hornady has a meplat of .295 by my measurement. Think a difference of .oo5 will make it a poor penetrator?

465H&H

465HH

To answer your ?? no I don't see where that little difference is any difference at all. The two bullets are not the same nose profile, the .500 caliber bullet has a slightly different nose profile than the Hornady profile. I was greatly surprised at the performance of the Hornady to be honest with you, in comparison with other bullets. With the flat meplat I could not see how it could not do well?

The 440 did get turned into a 485 in the end. Being 440 was a mistake.

I also measure very close to the same as you have for the Hornady meplat, and I don't have an answer as to why, at least not yet. Best I can do for that right now is that all flat meplats and nose profiles are not created equal, and that is not much of an answer. I do endeavor to learn more, and maybe one day have an answer.

Michael

465HH

I just went and measured the Hornady meplat again, and under good light and doing the best I can I am coming up with .250-.260 wide. The 485 .500 caliber bullet with a .300 meplat is noticeably larger just to the eye. Now I won't bet the farm on that, as I find that very difficult to measure with 100% accuracy, being hard to see the exact edge of the meplat, and other factors?

The two bullets, Hornady and my .500 485 are very different in nose profile. My .500 caliber bullet with the barnes profile has a .350-.360 meplat. Can the difference in .05 inches make that much of a difference in penetration? I think maybe, but I also think nose profile combined might make the difference?

I have also found that the different nose profiles that I have in .500 caliber, all with flat meplats, behave differently. Thus, not all flat meplats are equal either?

Michael

I have the same difficulty in measuring the meplat on the DGS bullets. There also seems to be a little variation between bullets. The best I can come up with is a measurement of between .280 and .295.

465H&H

Let us line up all of the trolls and test these bullets; any way that the bullets penetrate, we can declare the experiment a wonderful success and a benefit to mankind!

The only rule is we shoot until all the trolls fall down and roll away.

LD

465HH

Yes the meplat is very difficult to measure, and unless we were standing side by side measuring at the same time it would be difficult even then to come to consensus. Just yesterday morning I put one of the Hornady bullets in a vise (to hold, not to squeeze-I am not shootaway with a hammer) got a magnifying glass in left hand, calipers in right hand, measured as best as possible several times, came up with from .250-.280 different each time! So it is somewhere in there depending on several variables. I am sure there could be some variables in the bullets themselves too.

Concerning this directly, I am told by folks that know far more than I that a good rule of thumb for the size meplat is 70% of caliber. This is supposed to be a point at which good proper straight line penetration is obtained. Again it is my belief that nose profile still has a very important role in addition to this, as some of the bullets I have worked with do very well at somewhat less than 70% of caliber.

For my part I am going to bow out from this particular thread, as I think it has been beat to death, by myself along with another. I will however like to sum up a few things, and hope that there is very little argument as this is my opinion based on my experiences both on the range with test work and in the field.

Solids are far different animals than anything I have ever tested or worked with before, the other being expanding bullets. Very easy to work with expanding bullets they behave in very near absolute predictable behavior if properly tested. Not Solids! Different mediums will give different results, and the slightest variable injected can change everything--on the range doing test work regardless of medium, and in the field! An example of the slightest variable is one I experienced with working with some of the .500 caliber solids. Before requesting some examples of flat meplats to test-a bit expensive to do in smaller lots, I decided to just flatten the nose off the 512 gr round nose I had been working with. Put it to the grinder, then level the meplat and smooth it up. Now I am no engineer, and I have very few talents, and I don't work well with tools-but honestly these looked good to me. Level meplat-.300 caliber, smooth, looked very good to the eye and to the calipers as best I could see and do. Take these to the bullet box and they flew out and everywhere, backwards, sideways, you name it. I was very convinced at the time this would not work. In just a couple of weeks I received the samples, one of which was the same bullet (minus some weight as stated before by mistake) with a .300 meplat, only these were done by a CNC and an expert. These bullets penetrated straight and true and deep--very unlike the ones I made! Variable? I could not see it or measure it, but it was damn sure there somewhere?

While one bullet without doubt will work fantastic in one test medium, we can find a test medium or concoct one where it will not work proper! That is fact. One type nose profile may work, another not, barrel twist rates, meplat size, manufacturing process, bullet material, metallurgy, hard contact during penetration, bone, muscle, organ tissue, velocity, and who knows how many other factors that could come into play on the range with test work, in the field! These are but a very few factors I know can effect change on these bullets, far more so than on expanding bullets. How about caliber? How about small variations of bore size between calibers? One bullet may do great in one barrel--the next barrel may change it? While some of the things I have stated may seem contradictory, I have news for you, when taking into consideration all the variables that come into play it is contradictory! These are some things that may never be sorted out to 100% satisfaction by all! If anyone has any doubts to this then I challenge you to do your own test work in a controlled environment! It is only through these methods that you can see and begin to understand the variables that can potentially come into play from one bullet to the next. Not that it will not work in OTHER circumstances, but to work in controlled environments to understand the differences in the bullets themselves. Do the test work, then talk to me. Hell I don't have the answers, and probably never will. All I can do is what I do, continue to strive to learn in the most efficient way I know how to do. I will always test first, then take it to the field for final say so. This I believe is proper, and I am a shooter first, everything else is second to me and for me only.

Contradictory? Probably because of stated variables. Controversial? Without doubt! Most of you, thanks for your patience and for your input. Lawndart, my apology for the hi-jack, that was not my intentions. 465HH thanks for your input, and experiences.

We continue to endeavor to assimilate our understanding of the issue.
Thanks and Merry Christmas to all!

Michael