Hi guys,

I just have a couple of questions that I would appreciate your opinions on..

I shoot a CZ550 Safari Magnum in .458 Winchester Magnum.
The CZ has a magnum length action and magazine and because of such, I can load the OAL of the .458 the same as the Lott, getting very similar ballistics and no compression.

I am in the process of working up a good all round load that will be used for sambar, cattle, camel and hopefully water buffalo.
I am interested in Woodleigh's hydro bullets because
a. They're Aussie made, and
b. Because of the info Michael has given about mono bullets and their advantages and unbelievable penetration and performance.

The Hydro's in .458 come in 325, 400, 450 and 480 gr. After reading the info on mono's, using lighter than standard weights and getting better performance (and less recoil), I'm not real sure on exactly what weight I'm going to use?

Instead of the usual 480-450gr, with these bullets should I use the 400gr hydro at 2400fps on DG instead, and would I get the same performance as a heavier bullet but with less recoil?

If extreme penetration is what Hydro's are renowned for, what advantage would their be with using a 450-480gr over a 400 or even 325gr hydro on buff, cattle, etc..

As the integrity of the Hydro's can't be faulted, would a 325gr at 2700fps penetrate as much as a conventional 500gr soft point at 2150fps? Is this a viable option for big game?

If you guys were me, what one bullet out of the ones listed would you use the game I mentioned above? (And hopefully in the future bigger game still..)

As usual, I thank you and value your opinions and advice.

Warmest regards,

Russ.

Mate, can't really help exactly, as all I ever used with my .458WM were 500 grain Woodleigh softs and solids. They worked fine on buffalo and scrubbers, and smaller animals of course. Adam (Ozhunter) uses 480 grain Woodleighs to good effect. I used 400 grain Hydros in .450/400 3" NE at 2150fps to good effect on many buffalo, so I am confident it would work well for you going even faster.

Hey mate, thanks for your reply.

Yeah, I was gonna settle on the 500-550 Woodleigh's as my load for the heavies, but after reading about the mono's and they're effectiveness was keen to give the Hydro's a try. But the cost of them! I nearly dropped the phone when they told me!!

Did the Hydro's in the .450/400 leave a big wound channel?

If I could load the 480's and fit them in the magazine then that's what I would do. I used to load the 450's only because that's the heaviest I could fit in the case and magazine. They worked fine by the way.

The entrance wound is like a wadcutter but have not had one fully penetrate on a shoulder/shoulder or rear end raking shot from either my 458 or 416 with 400 grainers but dead buffalo all the same.

Cheers,
Mark.

quote:

Instead of the usual 480-450gr, with these bullets should I use the 400gr hydro at 2400fps on DG instead, and would I get the same performance as a heavier bullet but with less recoil?

If extreme penetration is what Hydro's are renowned for, what advantage would their be with using a 450-480gr over a 400 or even 325gr hydro on buff, cattle, etc..

Russ..................

Something to ponder upon....... I have zero experience with the hydros in the field, and will likely never have any, but I did test a couple in .458 caliber, the 400 first, and later the 450s.........

The hydro is basically designed as a "Cup Point" type bullet. A limited penetration solid, it is not a traditional solid in terms of drilling deep. Any Cup point design is somewhat of a "bastard child", and sometimes misunderstood concerning how it works, its mission in life, and what it is designed to do.

One of the best explanations, in very simple terms, is from my good friend John at North Fork, concerning their CPS... Cup Point Solid. John says that a cup point design "fools the aqueous test medium, or animal tissue into believing the bullet is far bigger in diameter because of the Surface Area Contacted by the aqueous medium or tissue".

hydro-(also hydr-) comb. form 1 water; relating to water: hydraulic

Aqueous........ To test in any other material not aqueous is of no consequence to hunting or our purposes.......

By the enlarged SURFACE AREA of these type bullets, you are creating more trauma, moving more aqueous tissue away from center wound cavity, and stretching some of this tissue to the point of tearing and ripping. The more velocity you run, the more trauma you cause, the more tissue destruction you cause by simply increasing hydraulic pressures as the bullet passes. In addition, these type bullets also respond to velocity in the form of deeper penetration as well.............

See the tests conducted below.............

12/30/09 400 Woodleigh 2312 fps 2312 fps 20 ft 50 Inches 400 X2-Dead Straight Line Penetration
Solid Hydro Damage from 5-10 inches then solid from
there



8/24/10 450 WoodHy 2274 fps 2192 fps 22 yds 47 Inches 450 X2- Dead Straight


These tests were conducted some months apart, therefore different distances, 400 at 20 ft and 450 at 22 yards. The first velocity is at my chronograph at 20 ft, the second velocity is at Impact....... I noted damage and trauma with the 400, but not the 450. We see that "Velocity" trumped sectional density for depth of penetration as well.

I think you can draw your own conclusions from this.

Michael

Went to Woodleighs www to have a look at the mentioned bullet.
They have little knowledge about what they talk about as do most other experts.

How can they talk about a hydro static bullet?

quote:

adjective Also, stat·i·cal.
1.
pertaining to or characterized by a fixed or stationary condition.
2.
showing little or no change: a static concept; a static relationship.
3.
lacking movement, development, or vitality: The novel was marred by static characterizations, especially in its central figures.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/static

Would the term they are looking for not be hydrodynamic?

Dane, don't get too worried about the name. Yes, perhaps it could be better, but those guys at Woodleigh absolutely do know their product and how to use it in the bush.

Mark, that's odd. I got numerous pass-throughs on all angles on buffalo with the 400 grain Hydros for .450/400 3" NE.

The wound channel is much better than a conventional solid, but a whisker less than the softs - but much deeper.

Out of .458WM I would avoid the 550 grain jobbies. Leave them for Lotts. Stick with 500 grain conventionals, like I did, or even better the 480 grain conventionals.

In the past Michael458 communicated with me at
my request, sharing clear details of experiences
hunting all manner of DG. With CEB and similar
mono solids, I have NO DOUBT that I'd use .280
S/D at 2200 FPS MV on any elephant in caliber
.375 or greater depending on my recoil tolerance
and my ability to get back on target for F/U shots
following recoil. Accuracy of shot placement would
be my concern, WITH NO WORRIES AT ALL ON THE
SUBJECT OF PENETRATION ADEQUACY.
If I was more inclined toward longer shooting
I would go with several hundred FPS faster MV.
Since I love to stalk up close to game I can
opt for the lower MV of 2200 FPS.