No secret that most gunmakers groan a bit when conronted with making those sharp conered flat nose bullets feed reliably in a bolt gun

Reason for using them in the first place? "Straighter bullet path" We're told.

Tried to research without luck, wonder if there has acually been studies by independent and non affiliated sources?

Anyone know?

Don'f know about the research question but penetration is supoosed to be the advantage of solids', suggesting that straightline momentum is related.

They do require that the feed ramp be cut lower in the bottom corners and a smaller radius be machined in the front corner of the mag box as they are more like feeding a brick as compared to a bullet with a partial or full nose radius.

It's amazing that anyone ever realized any amount of success killing big game with the old, totally inferior full radius bullet shapes. I guess they just got lucky, time after time.

More of double rifle bullet if you ask me, for obvious reasons.

Straight bullet path is a myth.

Every bullet will deviate sometimes.

No questions about it.

Worst ones pointed full metal jackets in my tests.

Other do better at going straight, most of the time.

Saaed and Timan...appreciate your input...I totally agree....Tongue in cheek....maybe a bullet built like a hole saw ???

The best “study” on flat point nose shapes is pinned right above this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The best “study” on flat point node shapes is pinned right above this thread.

As far as I’ve seen: correct. I had the pleasure of going to Michaels house a few times and slinging bullets. There is no doubt flat nose bullets work and perform differently. Better in the real world? Dunno. “More” predictable? Probably. There are just too many variables to know everything all the time, but if you can seem to control ANY of the variables to ANY extent that seems to be an advantage. I think that’s where Mike ended up. And a very good fellow to boot.

Michael wrote that his many tests in a long medium block proved that his #13 flat nosed solid was much superior at going straight than round nose solids. I killed just two buffalo with the #13 solid and it went straight in both cases from brisket to guts. Brian

Brian..you speaking of the ballistic gelatin type block? If so...i'd not be convinced this is a realistic "test" of anything but shock pattern

But...as my mother would proclaim "If putting an apple in your pocket makes you feel better, by all means put an apple in your pocket"" .

The flat nosed thread above was what made me switch to flat nosed solids, although the hydro type solids do seem a compromise.

I’ve used trophy bonded, Barnes flat nosed, and Northfork solids with excellent straight line penetration on multiple elephant, a rhino, hippo, and 2-3 buffalo. The only ones that didn’t exit were facing away (follow up on buffalo) or facing on (rhino, one frontal elephant) and those all were found after several feet of penetration in a straight line.

The only experience with round nose solids was in a .30-06 with woodleigh FMJ used on small stuff to save the hide. That I did see some rather fast deviation.

I know my experience is way too small to be statistically valid, but they do seem to work well, better than round nosed slugs.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
Brian..you speaking of the ballistic gelatin type block? If so...i'd not be convinced this is a realistic "test" of anything but shock pattern

But...as my mother would proclaim "If putting an apple in your pocket makes you feel better, by all means put an apple in your pocket"" .

If I remember correctly, Michael and Sam Rose did extensive testing of the flat nosed bullets on elephant and buffalo also.

Their thread is what caused me to switch to the flat nosed solids as well. CEB and Northfork.

304 pages of tests for flat nosed vs round. It's worth the long read.

Nothing scientific, but I've seen them used on many buffalo, a few Hippo and elephant by clients, and got many client reports..not a single complaint from anyone or self...I observed they shaved the hair on entranced allowing a clean flow of blood IMO and a high degree of exit wounds and straight penetration from my part, but any bullet can deviate under certain circumstances.

My favorite for big bores is the flat nose cup point Monolithics. an expanding solid of sorts.

Not saying they are the last word in bullets, just that they are damn well near the best..Lots of good bullets out there, soon we will see the 350 375s and 450 40 caliber from Woodleigh again.

What comes to mind is the number of years LE shot bad guys with round nose bullets with horrible results then Elmer pimped the flat nose solids that saved many a good guy, so why would it be any different on buffalo or any DG??

Hmmm, I got a tad off the subject but what the hell...

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
Brian..you speaking of the ballistic gelatin type block? If so...i'd not be convinced this is a realistic "test" of anything but shock pattern

But...as my mother would proclaim "If putting an apple in your pocket makes you feel better, by all means put an apple in your pocket"" .

If I remember correctly, Michael and Sam Rose did extensive testing of the flat nosed bullets on elephant and buffalo also.

Their thread is what caused me to switch to the flat nosed solids as well. CEB and Northfork.

304 pages of tests for flat nosed vs round. It's worth the long read.

Well..personally was never introduced to the results of testing you mention. May be what I am looking for.... Where does one get such "read"?

Guess one can read between the lines.... I'm not convinced about the magic and not sure about any therotical advantage....except for the "apple in the pocket"...which is not to be discounted

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):


Well..personally was never introduced to the results of testing you mention. May be what I am looking for.... Where does one get such "read"?

Guess one can read between the lines.... I'm not convinced about the magic and not sure about any therotical advantage....except for the "apple in the pocket"...which is not to be discounted

Here you go. All 304 pages.

https://forums.accuratereloadi...4711043/m/2861098911

Or google B&M Rifles and Cartridges.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
Brian..you speaking of the ballistic gelatin type block? If so...i'd not be convinced this is a realistic "test" of anything but shock pattern

But...as my mother would proclaim "If putting an apple in your pocket makes you feel better, by all means put an apple in your pocket"" .

Duane, They used a a big long box of wet news print. ( maybe it was phone books, I forget.) Please google B&M Rifles and Cartridges. Michael McCroury and Sam Rose are the "real deal".

Also, they and their family and pals killed hundreds, I think, of buffalo in Australia and Africa while doing their R&D on the #13 solid and Raptor bullets. Cutting Edge Bullets USA and North Fork bullets in Sweden manufacture and sell these bullets. The Raptor really kills cape buffalo too.

Here you go.

https://www.b-mriflesandcartridges.com/

Flat nosed bullets probably impact the target differently and no doubt shed their energy quicker.
But if flat nosed solids penetrate better I wonder why engineers of supersonic aircraft and submarines haven’t discovered them ?

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Flat nosed bullets probably impact the target differently and no doubt shed their energy quicker.
But if flat nosed solids penetrate better I wonder why engineers of supersonic aircraft and submarines haven’t discovered them ?

Besides I love the idea of supersonic aircraft and submarines spinning 100 000 RPM

Jiri

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The best “study” on flat point nose shapes is pinned right above this thread.

Yes, exactly.

Guys, honestly, you just missed that?

458Win,
Good point, but no, it involves different physics than aerodynamics. I think it is mostly hydraulic engineering.( My guess.) The # 13 solid is called "#13" because of the 13 degree ogive. The meat cavitates on the sides of the bullets (air space) enabling the bullet to penetrate much further and straighter than a round nose or spitzer solid bullet through all bones and tissue. It also leaves a wider wound channel. The Flat Meplat is 67%, as I remember, of the diameter of the bullet. It has completely different hydraulics than a round nose solid, as I understand it. Please work through the suggested reading if you are really into it. It's very interesting what these guys did.

It's a bit complicated, for me, and I am too tired/dumb to explain it very well tonight, but it is truly a fascinating paradyme shift in solid bullet design for superior terminal ballistics. The design is catching on and other designer/manufactures are copying or working with the design principals.

I and my family leave in the morning for South Africa. We will be three generations of hunters in the bushveld. ( Pretty cool for this old grandpa.) My son will hunt PG with a bow, my 14 year old grandson will hunt with a 30-06 and I am booked for 4 cape buffalo with a 470NE double. And interestingly, I will not be using Cutting Edge bullets. I will be using Peregrine Bushmaster bullets that have terminal performance similar to the North Fork #13 Cup Point solid, from the basic Michael/Sam design. It's sort of a semi-expanding solid. I have killed one cape buffalo with this bullet in 577NE and it folded him up on the spot. I will report back in a few weeks.

Brian Canada

Enjoy and Good Hunt!

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Flat nosed bullets probably impact the target differently and no doubt shed their energy quicker.
But if flat nosed solids penetrate better I wonder why engineers of supersonic aircraft and submarines haven’t discovered them ?

Supersonic aircraft and submarines aren't designed to penetrate living tissue on impact.

Key phrase of that thread being TERMINAL bullet performance.

The Trident ICBM has a blunt nose, it does use an aerospike to fool the shock wave. I think a ADCAP torpedo also has a blunt nose.

quote:

Originally posted by Arniet:
The Trident ICBM has a blunt nose, it does use an aerospike to fool the shock wave. I think a ADCAP torpedo also has a blunt nose.

Elon discussed in an interview on Youtube, how his engineers built the Starship rockets with a blunt nose also but he told them to put a pointed cone on them for looks.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qpCYyC6xm-g

But again, flat nosed bullets are not about the flight from the end of the barrel to the animal. The flat nose is about performance of the bullet once it strikes living tissue.

Comparing flat nosed bullets to fighter jets is an apples to oranges comparison.

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The best “study” on flat point node shapes is pinned right above this thread.

As far as I’ve seen: correct. I had the pleasure of going to Michaels house a few times and slinging bullets. There is no doubt flat nose bullets work and perform differently. Better in the real world? Dunno. “More” predictable? Probably. There are just too many variables to know everything all the time, but if you can seem to control ANY of the variables to ANY extent that seems to be an advantage. I think that’s where Mike ended up. And a very good fellow to boot.

The above is correct. Michael McCourry (Michael458 in the Terminal Ballistics thread) is one of the best ballistics and terminal performance scientists that ever existed…maybe the best. He did countless studies…especially on big bore dangerous game rifles. His evidence is difficult to even argue with.

He took his research to the field and so have I in the last decade. As a large animal vet…necropsy forensic examination is right up my alley.

The Cutting Edge Bullets and North Fork solids that Michael designed for them…what he call the BBW #13 profile (60% meplate)…are night and day better at straight-line penetration than any other solid on the market. It is unbelievable the depth they will penetrate an ele on a frontal brain shot. Most (all of mine) side brains and heart/lungs exit.

Besides straight-path and depth…the big 60% meplate flat-nose solids in .458 and larger calibers hit so hard the animals react like shot with Barnes TSX when hit…they hammer them. In my .500 NE…I don’t even shoot anything but solids anymore.

Michael McCourry is a good friend and he left AR years ago but I will see if he will come back and post.

He not only has data…he has data backed by 1000’s of rounds in hundreds of cartridges. He has an indoor range and ballistics lab at his home and tested everything he published in the field. And as Baxter said…a nicer more generous man never existed either.

Anytime I need a data-backed hand-loading question answered…I call him. It is unfathomable the depth of info he has. He also pressure tests and has pressure data on all of his recommended starting loads. When I sent you Duane…hand-loads for the .500 A-Square for an unshot rifle…I called Michael and asked him what a fool proof safe load for that rifle was and he told me: with the 570 CEB solid…100 gr of R-15 is a hugely safe starting load as to pressure and with give you over 2000 fps of MV. That is why I sent you that load even though others have said 105 of R-15 was their starting load.

Anyone who would like to visit with him personally…I can get them contact information…with Michael’s permission of course. He is today the indisputable expert on large bore ballistics and terminal performance in large bodied animals.

A gunsmith building dangerous game big-bore rifles today should be encouraging people to shoot flat-nose solids and honing-skills on making bolt-actions feed them…for once they hit the critter they are unequaled. And, since they are precision machined projectiles…they are also incredibly accurate.

Barnes banded 570g solids feed fine in my 500 Jeffery. Don't see using them but I have a couple of hundred sitting on the shelf. Heard they weren't allowed to be sold for awhile.

As far as seating bullets, do they require a different shape on the seating stem? Is there a special one. Or does it even matter?

Duane:

There is actually scientific evidence for the assumption of in target stability of a flat nosed projectile.

There are numerous studies that deal with stability of FN cavitating bodies in fluids in the defence literature. The original use of these bullets to kill sea mines using standard on board machine guns. I specifically do not call it supercavitation because muscle is a solid and supercavitation can not physically occur. We can say Supercavity like behaviour (Cavitation in fluids is not dependent on nose shape per se but rather on the mass density and vapour pressure of the fluid )

Not to digress. For a spin stabilized body to be ballistically stable 3 conditions need to be satisfied. It needs to be statically ( gyroscopically )stable, it needs to be dynamically stable and finally the projectile has to be tractable. In the target static stability goes out the door the minute the oblong body enters the target.

In the ogived body with centre of mass behind the geometric centre a overturning moment is created with the point of pressure somewhere on the ogive. This moment is driven by the drag force and will overturn the body in short order as it is a lift force.

When the meplat is flat the point of pressure is on the front surface of the projectile with "flow " around the edges of the meplat. As long at that point of pressure remains on the flat surface a lift force cannot be created.

The bullet is however still subject the dynamic instability conditions accounting for the drift of the bullet in the target ( if it were a infinite target )

Well...For one...I'm willing to accept that there's an intense loyalty to the concept of the FN bullets. OK by me!

I had a two pronged question mark...the other was feeding issues. This is not to be taken lightly...if you can't get the round in the chamber, you're fawked!


Hope we kick that around a bit

You are right about that.

I’ve had one rifle that refused to feed them, and it cost me a trophy fee by forcing me to single load and I didn’t make a good hit (with solids that’s much more an issue) on a duiker.

It’s incumbent on the hunter to make sure his DGR is reliable. If you can’t get it to feed, it’s a poor club in your moment of need.

If I’m paying the money for a custom, I will expect the maker to work with me to ensure it feeds flat nose bullets, assuming it’s bespoke. I would provide cartridges to them if needed to work their magic.

If it’s an existing arm, while I’d be willing to pay for work to use them, if it was not working, then use the ammo that does or a different gun.

To me, if the maker is unwilling to work on it to make it feed, then I would not buy it… but that’s for existing makers. A classic gun by a deceased person or an heirloom I’d just use as it is.

I’ve got 3 magazine DG rifles that feed them.

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
Well...For one...I'm willing to accept that there's an intense loyalty to the concept of the FN bullets. OK by me!

I had a two pronged question mark...the other was feeding issues. This is not to be taken lightly...if you can't get the round in the chamber, you're fawked!




Hope we kick that around a bit

This is true, however after studying the subject of FP bullets off and on over the course of
the last few days in my spare time I can't see a good reason not to shoot the FP design.
75% to 100% more penetration in test media, which from what I gathered is harder to penetrate
than muscle tissue. What's not to like about that?
So far going back 10 or 12 years I've had a good number of clients ask that their actions/rifles
feed the Northfork bullets to be specific.
Instead of dancing around the subject I'm making all of my actions feed the Northfork right out of
the box, probably from 50cal down to 338cal is what I'm thinking would make the most sense to me.
It seems pretty obvious if an action will feed the FP it will feed anything you put in it.

quote:

Originally posted by Timan:

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
Well...For one...I'm willing to accept that there's an intense loyalty to the concept of the FN bullets. OK by me!

I had a two pronged question mark...the other was feeding issues. This is not to be taken lightly...if you can't get the round in the chamber, you're fawked!




Hope we kick that around a bit

This is true, however after studying the subject of FP bullets off and on over the course of
the last few days in my spare time I can't see a good reason not to shoot the FP design.
75% to 100% more penetration in test media, which from what I gathered is harder to penetrate
than muscle tissue. What's not to like about that?
So far going back 10 or 12 years I've had a good number of clients ask that their actions/rifles
feed the Northfork bullets to be specific.
Instead of dancing around the subject I'm making all of my actions feed the Northfork right out of
the box, probably from 50cal down to 338cal is what I'm thinking would make the most sense to me.
It seems pretty obvious if an action will feed the FP it will feed anything you put in it.

My 9.3 now does.


Not sure if you saw the pics, in that thread there are pics of when I was there and we shot the FNs through a 4x4 and then into media. It was like the 4x4 didn’t exist. Amazing. I once had Michael shoot some of the much-vaunted 30 cal 220 gr steel jacket hornadys i had and sure enough they wormed their way out of the box.

Perhaps the science behind flat nose penetration is why many the hard cast handgun bullets designed for hunting larger game have super wide meplats and are flat nosed.

Posted by Timan:

quote:

Instead of dancing around the subject I'm making all of my actions feed the Northfork right out of
the box

Have you been able to incorporate the feeding of the FP into the initial manufacturing process or do you have to go back and "retrofit" post initial production?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike_Dettorre:
Perhaps the science behind flat nose penetration is why many the hard cast handgun bullets designed for hunting larger game have super wide meplats and are flat nosed.

As a kid I was always fascinated by Bill Wilson’s Redhawk conversions and Magnaport’s Blackhawk conversions. Both of which killed many lion, Buffalo, and elephant (I think Gary Kelly killed three elephant). They all used flat-nose hard-cast lead .44 bullets. Never made sense as a 14-year old but does now.

There is something about the Win M70 that makes the majority feed these bullets as is.

I started shooting them 15 years ago in a pre-64 Safari Grade Winchester .458 WM. It feeds them like butter and always did. Initially I just assumed this to be the norm as all my old M70s feed them fine.

When they really started catching on the feeding issues surfaced. I tried them in a company rifle in Zim, a Whitworth on a mauser, and low and behold they would not feed.

The old guys at SSK (not there now) had it down to an art but only wanted to use M70 actions. Michael McCourry always recommends M70 actions for these bullets.

I am not a gunsmith.

Some recent experience: 500 A Square usees a belted case (460 Wby parent) In the process of making CEB feed, a jam was encounterd where the sharp corner of the flat nose caught on the belt cut in the chamber. More on that later

Later, a puzzling jam,,,tuned out the case mouth also hung up on that belt cut.

This was exacerbated by a crimp that did not "match up" with the cannelure. Close examination showed that the bullet itself kept the match up from occuring.


Lesson is that the seating depth must be timed EXACTLY to eliminate that case mouth eposure .


In fact , the crimp actually created a sort of inverted funnel shape, so the case mouth could REALLY snag the belt cut.

I blame the bullet machining...make the cannelure a little deeper or perhaps a little wider or both

A note: the belt in the 460 Wby is .004 "thicker" than other belts, (.008 vs .012)....just enough to get a bigger bite!

The belt could easily be elminated (plenty of shoulder for head space) and the POTENTIAL could be completely elilminated...

Now, back to the CEB bullet. All it wdould take the eliminate the bullet/ belt cut collision would be to provide a bit of a radius at that sharp corner

The Norma solid is a perfect example of a
FN with a generous radius, But,,,seems Lane, for instance, beliveves the generous radius dininishes the FN effect

I'ts not unheard of that ammo must be part of the smooth operation of the action...The 30-30 ammo and M-94 Win is a good example.

Some time back, a customer brought in a M-70 in 458 that jammed consistently! I screwed around with the action for a couple hours, making certain everything was A-OK. Tried every facory ammo available

Guess what, he returned, a lttle red faced, claiming it still jammed. Turned out he fessed up to handloads. When examined, the bullets were seated a out about .065 further than reccommended max.

Put the bullets where they belonged and ..viiola...fed perfectly

And...All this is provided as a "snap shot" of things to look out for....for the good of the order.

I think Barnes deserves a lot of credit for some small stuff on their FN solids:

Even though the meplat isn't as big as CEB or NF, they are good sized (except for the 9.3 for size reason) to give some rounded shoulder; they DO make the front groove deeper; AND they radius or at least ramp the profile into the first band so it does not get hung up on the belt cut.

See here on a 9.3 solid.