I've been using Barnes Banded Solid and TSX bullets almost exclusively now since the late 90's. I've always had respect for the company and their products.

Recently, I heard that the Flat Nose bullet was being dropped from the solid line up in some calibers such as 416 and 375. Checking their website shows that the FN is still available but only through the website, otherwise, those calibers are RN only now. No problem.

What I do have a problem with is a full page worth of propaganda on the Banded Solid page stating that the FN "craze" is based on unsubstantiated "Theory" and that the RN design has worked for so many years that there is no need for the FN, but "Oh by the way, the reason the FN is being dropped is that it doesn't chamber as well in bolt guns".

Ok, I understand that the FN may not chamber in all bolt guns easily. I understand their decision to go back to the RN design in certain calibers because of that. What I don't appreciate is the doublespeak about no evidence showing that the FN design provides better penetration. If that is truly their position, why not drop all the FN bullets and go back to RN in all calibers, not just certain traditional "Bolt Guns".

I think I just became a CEB convert, or am I reading too much hype into this?

Someone at barnes has been following the fantastic work of Michael458 on AR ! The evidence in his thread is overwhelming and in my opinion indisputable. Just start using CEBs or Northforks and let barnes wallow in their propaganda.

quote:

What I do have a problem with is a full page worth of propaganda on the Banded Solid page stating that the FN "craze" is based on unsubstantiated "Theory" and that the RN design has worked for so many years that there is no need for the FN, but "Oh by the way, the reason the FN is being dropped is that it doesn't chamber as well in bolt guns".

I, too, thought this was a not-so-good job of backpedaling. I think AR has a pretty good representation of people and their experiences and I don't recall so many complaints that it would make me change my product. I know it's just a small percentage of the customer population here but still.

quote:

Originally posted by aliveincc:
Someone at barnes has been following the fantastic work of Michael458 on AR ! The evidence in his thread is overwhelming and in my opinion indisputable. Just start using CEBs or Northforks and let barnes wallow in their propaganda.

+1

Why fight Cityhall whenwe have a better product to use anyway?

CEB=

SSR

Me, too.

I've used Barnes for years. Way way back when, in the days of Nosler Partition setting the benchmark in 338, Barnes had a 300 grain roundnose lead thumper. Always good as an 'in-close', penetrating bullet, and it dropped a few warthog in its day. When the X-bullet came out I was impressed with its accuracy and ability to 'upgrade' lighter calibres for medium to heavy game hunting.

Then came the era of the TSX and matching Flatnose solid. That is a great combination. I can't go back to roundnose solids. They have even upped the anty by adding blue-tipped TSX bullets in .375 and .416. (The .458 300 grain is too light for buffalo, so they still need to work on the heavy end of the range.)

Meanwhile, CEB is making headway with their 'non-con' and matching flatnose. They are soon going to make 'pinochio' inserts to provide high BC's on these non-cons, too.
That has tipped the scale for me to want to build a .500" as an allaround, walk-the-Selous type of gun, impala to buffalo.

Barnes is missing out.

My PH on my last safari has stopped a lot of big game with solids and knows a lot of people in the American bullet industry. He gets samples of new bullets to try. According to him, FN solids will penetrate up to twice as far, depending on what they're penetrating and the percent of flatness of the nose. He asked Barnes why they were discontinuing the flat nose and they told him it was marketing reasons. He also says that in cases where FNs won't feed, it's because the front of the magazine, where the bullet first hits, is dinged up and you can smooth it. In 2008 I left some North fork .458 solid loads with another PH. He reported they would not feed in his (very beat up) Model 70. they fed in my (very well taken care of) Model 70 with no problem.

Yeah, every PH I've spoken with also says the Flat Nose is head and shoulders above the RN in penetration and maintaining course. It's the only design I'll shoot in a DG Solid. For the record, I shoot it in DRs as well as several bolt actions. I've never had a feed problem with the FN in any of my bolt guns and they are all of different manufacturers.

I just hate to see Barnes take the low road by crapping on the very design they promoted so enthusiastically for so long by using selectively edited PH comments that appear to be taken out of context! Why can't they just say something honest like "Due to some bolt action users preference regarding feeding, we are reintroducing the RN design in addition to the superior penetration qualities of the ever popular FN bullet", or something of that nature.

With as much support present on this forum for the CEB bullets, the only reason I didn't switch was that I am happy with the Barnes designs. This poorly executed marketing ploy insults my intelligence enough that I've found a reason to switch now! It's not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things but I just don't like being fed a line of BS!

The Rangers based at the Kruger park in SA have been doing extensive testing of different bullet designs mainly using the .450 Rigby. None of the FN have shown the depth of penetration as the blunt round nosed designs.

It is also very apparent that the Barnes FN. do not feed well in some cartridges. We have faced the same problem. Do you make one design for some rounds and a different design for others? In cartridges intended for use in double rifles you can use whatever shape you like...If velocity is going to be held under 2200fps you can use a different allow which is kinder to barrels...you could end up with 2 profiles and two different materials and an inventory nightmare.

Lastly Barnes are now also producing bullets for their own ammunition and that ammo needs to work in all rifles (see my coments on the 9,3), so for their own ammo they need a round nosed design. Do you make one shape for your own production and one for selling to handloaders?

If you have the production capacity the more options you offer the more happy customers you will have. If you don't really have the capacity offering too many variations will just mean that the one the customer wants will, inevitably, be out of stock when he wants it, and everybody soon starts complaining, so better to make fewer designs and have stuff available.

quote:

The Rangers based at the Kruger park in SA have been doing extensive testing of different bullet designs mainly using the .450 Rigby. None of the FN have shown the depth of penetration as the blunt round nosed designs.

Some documentation on this would be helpful.
It sounds like it contradicts the documentation in the long thread "Terminal Bullet Performance" in the Big Bore forum.

They can't both be right, but it is possible that in many hunting situations the margins of bullet/trajectory failure are not crossed.

For example, solid penetration in a broadside shot should work great for both profiles because the roundnose solid will usually exit before its negative side-effects become visible. It is extremely rare on a broadside shot that the bizarre happens, e.g.the roundnose comes back and slaps the shooter in the leg, etc.

I have always used Barnes bullets. In 2005 the then rather new Barnes Banded Flat nose was the first flat nose solid I took to the field. On 3 buffalo in Tanzania it became very apparent that this was no ordinary run of the mill solid! There was a tremendous difference in trauma inflicted up front from what I was used to shooting and seeing reactions with the round nose barnes solids that I had used on buffalo and elephant. That trend continued when I started searching for a proper bullet to make my .500 caliber rifles a viable entity.

As far as I was concerned the new Barnes Banded Solid was the measure to go by. It was, and still is an excellent nose profile, most having the proper 65% meplat of caliber, and just plain excellent performance time after time.

That trust has for sure been violated, raped, and now this deceitful, double speaking campaign is seen by me as nothing but a plot against performance. Someone somewhere up high, out of the scope of reality has decided that cheap rifles wont' feed the flat nose solids, and so NOW all of the sudden the Flat Nose solids are not as good as they used to be? When they come on line it was all about performance, now what has changed that the round nose is a better performer? BS-BS-BS and yes Todd, it's an insult to our intelligence! It's an insult to performance, it's an insult to shooters and hunters everywhere. They are a traitor to performance, that would have never been allowed until barnes was sold. Now it's only about numbers, not performance. And a smear campaign is on. Bull Shit propaganda that does not hold water, even in their own test work, or anyone elses test work. Put plainly, it's a LIE.

Don Heath, very sorry, I do not buy the test work you present. You can get a round nose to equal and maybe even drive deeper than a flat nose, depending on the FLAT NOSE design, which is not mentioned, all flat nose solids are NOT CREATED EQUAL! But you have to do it in WOOD. One can take wood boards, stack them together, DRY WOOD BOARDS, and then the round nose can perform. Boards are too dense to allow the round nose to veer or turn. Any other reasonable test medium, especially "aqueous" material, it is impossible for the round nose to even come to 1/2 the performance of a proper designed FN solid, meaning one with a 65% meplat of caliber, proper nose profile, proper construction, and so forth. Even DIE HARD round nose fmj fanatics, friends of mine here on this forum, will tell you that in animal tissue that FN solids drive deeper than their beloved FMJ round nose. No, the ranger test you quote I don't buy, there is fishy stink going on there.

Feeding Issues? So we sacrifice performance so we can buy CHEAP rifles that won't feed, and we want to trust the cheap ass rifles in the field, with cheap and less than optimum bullet performance? Oh yes, that makes perfect sense to me! Even with cheap ass rifles a little work and they can feed too! Are we too damned sorry to spend a couple hundred dollars, make an effort to do some rifle work, or is it just too easy to throw performance out the door for a bullet that will feed in the cheap rifle? Obviously so. I use Winchester M70s, I don't have issues with feeding a bullet up to a 68% meplat, and that depending on nose profile.

Oh and let's not go to the point of "The Round Nose fails the test, and it always fails in the field" NO NO NO..... I never say that, never have said that. Of course it is successful in the field, but no matter what you say, it is not, and never will be superior to a proper flat nose designed bullet! It does on occasion perform exactly as it does in the tests, I personally have seen it and others have as well. BS BS.... Propaganda at it's worst!

Had the new folks at barnes just come out and stated we are going to make round nose solids in addition to our flat nose banded for those with feeding issues, then that would have been fine. But they choose to start a pure BS propaganda campaign using double speak to down play the performance issue. For sure an insult to each of us.

The barnes flat nose profile is one of the best solids ever made. It is good, was good. I used it in the field on many things, perfect performance every time. Test work--Perfect performance every time, with the exception of the poorly designed meplat of the 9.3s. Horrible performance in the test work. But it was designed to feed through the many cheap 9.3s on the market, not for performance. But because of this I will no longer support anything from barnes, if they shamelessly LIE about this, something we here for sure 110% know what the truth is, then they will lie about anything to increase market share. To hell with them. I for one do not need their bullets, ya'll can make your own minds up! So help me GOD I would use a Woodleigh FMJ ROUND NOSE before I would pollute my rifles with a barnes anything anymore! I understand the Woodleighs feed just dandy! So there! If you want performance, get a BBW#13 or a North Fork, if you want to feed in cheap rifles, BUY WOODLEIGHs! At least there is no BS campaign coming out of Woodleigh!

Michael

Want to talk about double speak and BS. Did a little search, and came up with this on the barnes site, under frequently asked questions--FAQ

http://www.barnesbullets.com/i...ion/bullet-talk/faq/

quote:

Banded Solids have a wider meplat, which insures deep, straight-line penetration. These machined homogeneous copper/zinc-alloy bullets will not disintegrate or deflect when impacting heavy bone. They resist deformation so well some hunters have actually retrieved these bullets from game and reused them on later hunts.

I suppose they have not had time to change or eliminate that from their own website?


Michael

Barnes has made solids for many, many years.

First, they produced conventional lead-core FMJ's.

A number of years ago they switched to round nose monolithics (which I still have many of).

They eventually switched to flat nose monos, and now back to round nose (albeit, now with "driving bands".)

Now we are told that the flat nose solids do not feed well and may perform worse than round noses in the field.

Solids are almost always used in DG rifles. As such, they MUST feed properly and perform properly in the animal.

When Barnes switched from RN to flat nose, did they not test feeding in a variety of rifles before doing so??? Or was this just a marketing ploy?

Did they not test the flat noses before making the switch? Did they not test these bullets with professional hunters to make sure they performed BEFORE switching?

Now we are led to believe that the flat noses do not perform well. If this is indeed true, Barnes are guilty of gross negligence in having switched to the flat noses in the first place.

Michael:

I think you are being a little to tough on poor old Barnes. Their TSX bullets are superb. They sill have the flat nose solids for all the double rifle calibers. Some bolt rifles do indeed feed better with the round nose solids and round nose solids work well. How do we know that? Because people have been using them for years with great success. I am with you. The flat nose solids seem to penetrate more and inflict greater trauma. However, to say the the flat nose solids work better is no reason to abandon the round nose solids if they do indeed feed better in you particular rifle. In addition, you can still buy the flat nose solids directly from Barnes if they feed well in your bolt rifle.

I agree with you that their web site post is at best disingenuous. It would have been better if they had taken the approach that Woodleigh did with their Hydros. The Woodleigh web site cautions you to make sure that the Hydros will cycle through your bold action before you go on your hunt.

Take deep breath my friend. I think the remodeling is stressing you out... LOLOLOL An $1800 faucet! I'd be pretty stressed to0!

quote:

you could end up with 2 profiles and two different materials and an inventory nightmare.

Lastly Barnes are now also producing bullets for their own ammunition and that ammo needs to work in all rifles (see my coments on the 9,3), so for their own ammo they need a round nosed design. Do you make one shape for your own production and one for selling to handloaders?

If you have the production capacity the more options you offer the more happy customers you will have. If you don't really have the capacity offering too many variations will just mean that the one the customer wants will, inevitably, be out of stock when he wants it, and everybody soon starts complaining, so better to make fewer designs and have stuff available.

Well, according to their website, they ARE making both profiles and will continue to do so. It's just that to get the FN in some calibers, you have to order directly from their website as opposed to Cabela's or other retailers. So it appears they are going to have an inventory nightmare.

On the inventory, it remains to be seen what will happen in 2012-2013. Will Barnes drop one or the other? Will flatnoses continue to be produced?

Barnes original plan (late 2010) was to drop the flatnose entirely. As that leaked to the public in early 2011, they started to get a stream of complaints and protests, strong enough for them to reconsider. It must be remembered that this change has taken place at the same time that the company was sold to a new parent company (Remington's parent?). Obviously, somebody was more concerned with marketing prepared ammunition than providing quality components. The thing that sticks in people's throats is the distortion of the discussion by Barnes. Many of them know better, but apparently somebody up on top doesn't.

As Michael commented, the new round Barnes solids will work great in solid-wood animals. If you find any animals like that, drop in a new Barnes.

I think we need to remember that the number one goal of any bullet or ammo company is to make as much profit as possible. I suspect that a large portion if not most of Barnes' bullet production goes to ammo manufacturers. If ammo manufacturers keep getting complaints from consumers that their ammo won't feed in their rifles they will want a change. I think that is what happened at both Barnes and Norma. I also think we must realize that the fast majority of clients or PHs that buy ammo for use on DG don't come to this site and are not well versed in bullet performance. If they have a choice of buying RN solids that they know will feed in their rifles or FN that may or may not feed, I think they will select the RN. It would be suicide to use a bullet that may jam in a DG situation. Yes, they can get the rifle modified but their thinking will be why do that when the RN designs have worked for years and continue to work very well. You may not agree with that line of thinking (I certainly don't) but it is probably fact.

As far as FN solids penetrating further than RN steel jacketed solids in elephants, in my experience on some angles they do on others not. Body shots and full frontal head shots Yes on angled shots through the head or down from top of head No. It can also depend on the weight of the bullet or velocity both of which can increase penetration.

One question that has always intrigued me is how much penetration do we need? Do we need a bullet that can penetrate two or three elephants and go on to penetrate several mopani trees? Is it reasonable to give up some penetration to assure trouble free feeding? I think that Hornady has done just that with their DGS bullet. In my experience it penetrates deeper than RN designs but not as much as 65% FN designs. It also gives little if any feeding problems.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
On the inventory, it remains to be seen what will happen in 2012-2013. Will Barnes drop one or the other? Will flatnoses continue to be produced?

Barnes original plan (late 2010) was to drop the flatnose entirely. As that leaked to the public in early 2011, they started to get a stream of complaints and protests, strong enough for them to reconsider. It must be remembered that this change has taken place at the same time that the company was sold to a new parent company (Remington's parent?). Obviously, somebody was more concerned with marketing prepared ammunition than providing quality components. The thing that sticks in people's throats is the distortion of the discussion by Barnes. Many of them know better, but apparently somebody up on top doesn't.

As Michael commented, the new round Barnes solids will work great in solid-wood animals. If you find any animals like that, drop in a new Barnes.

Your post is 100% correct IMO. Who knows what they will eventually do with the RN and FN inventory. But that is not the issue.

The issue is the BS story. But then, who here didn't think the focus would change from performance to marketing as soon as the company was sold.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
The issue is the BS story. But then, who here didn't think the focus would change from performance to marketing as soon as the company was sold.

quote:

This poorly executed marketing ploy insults my intelligence enough that I've found a reason to switch now! It's not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things but I just don't like being fed a line of BS!

quote:

What I don't appreciate is the doublespeak about no evidence showing that the FN design provides better penetration.

Todd

I think you are pissed! I concur with everything you have said here, and I have been the same since we heard this crap in January, and it only gets worse from barnes since then. I have no use for them any longer, and anything they have can be replaced by someone else.

This is what I put on the B&M Website back in January concerning the issue, this located under News and Events, Jan 2011.

quote:

In other recent news there is disturbing news from Barnes Bullets. Seems they are discontinuing their line of "Flat Nose" Banded Solids in favor of the "Old" Round Nose profile. Their reason, feeding issues in "CHEAP" factory production rifles! This of course is a disgrace to "Dangerous Game" performance in real Dangerous Game rifles. We as shooters need not worry, anything that Barnes has to offer can very easily be replaced by the Super Performance solids from North Fork Technologies and Cutting Edge Bullets. Obviously we here at B&M wholeheartedly DO NOT support Barnes decision on this matter, and in fact view it as a traitorous act to bullet performance, and our performance and success in the field. As far as I am concerned Barnes has sold out on performance to sell more bullets for cheap rifles. I can most certainly replace anything that Barnes has to offer in favor of bullets capable of superior performance in the field.

In my view, A heinous act against performance, an insult to shooters and DG Hunters all over the world! Who do they think they are trying to fool with that BS?

I have a terminal page loaded with all sorts of things, including a page on Solid and FMJ bullets. When I did this page originally I included the barnes banded flat nose as one of 3-4 excellent nose profiles, done proper! I removed that today, and gave reasons why it was removed. It is no longer included. I think I would be ashamed to have it next to North Fork and Cutting Edge, two companies who support "Performance" above everything else, and make no compromises of performance!


Dave Bush, yes, remodeling is very stressful! You may be correct, let me see if I have extra meds on hand? HEH HEH HEH.........

Michael

Never had a problem with Flat-Nose Barnes Banded Solids feeding in any of my bolts. FNBBS had been my favorite solids of any I had used.

Like many of you, with their return to the RN profile (and I have no doubt that the FN will disappear for the reasons stated in this thread) I have simply moved on to other FN solids.

This a box of solids in a variety of calibers from .375 up to .620 was delivered yesterday from CEB.

NorthFork, Cutting Edge Bullets, S&H and GS Custom all have FN bullets to suit my needs. If Barnes chooses another direction for their solids, so be it - I just won't use them.

Will CEB ship to Canada? Barnes won't, at least they won't yake a direct order.If the 450 grain BBS is going to disappear, we don't have a 450 grain FP mono option.

quote:

Originally posted by Dogleg:
Will CEB ship to Canada? Barnes won't, at least they won't yake a direct order.If the 450 grain BBS is going to disappear, we don't have a 450 grain FP mono option.

Dogleg

This is the latest news I have on that issue. I think it's solved.

From the CEB Website

08/10/2011

Reloading International is now set up to export our bullets to many different countries. Their fees are very reasonable and their charge is 10% over the retail price to cover the cost of the necessary paperwork. Please visit their web site at www.reloadinginternational.com or call at 541-404-2262 for details. You can also email Mike Gregg at mike@reloadinginternational.com. Until they get our product lines on their web site orders will have to be placed by phone or email. It takes approximately 2 weeks for the permits to go through so please keep that in mind. All bullets will be shipped priority mail and the shipping cost is roughly $35.00 to Canada and $53.00 to other countries.


Michael

I remember that guy now, I used to buy Nosler factory seconds from him on ebay. I didn't know that he was still around.

I shoot a CZ 500 Jeffery. I have never had a problem feeding cartridges with that rifle but then again, I have always used Woodleigh RN, PP, and solids in that gun. The nose profile Woodleigh uses is especially conducive to avoid feeding issues. If I were going after dangerous game with the 500, I would stick with the Woodleighs. I have some 535 grain Barnes flat nose banded solids but in that gun, when the chips are down, I don't want to have to worry about a jam.

Michael is right. The CEM#13 is better but you have to ask yourself this question...Would you be afraid to leave camp if the only solids you had were Barnes or Woodligh RNs? I wouldn't. How about you?

"A heinous act against performance, an insult to shooters and DG Hunters all over the world!" Easy Michael! Barnes is a good company. In my view their TSX bullets are the finest expanding bullet on the market. If they are now selling ammo, they probably had to switch back to the round nose because of potential feeding issues. Not everyone does their homework. I have heard stories of guys arriving in Africa without even having shot their rifles. If that guy gets eaten by a lion, hell, first thing his wife does is sue Barnes. If the hand loader can still buy the flat points for reloading, hey, we're all good. If not, there are other choices.

quote:

Would you be afraid to leave camp if the only solids you had were Barnes or Woodligh RNs? I wouldn't. How about you?

Afraid? Scared? No. Concerned, yes. Less Confident--A hell of a lot! And I am thinking the worst of shots, not the best.

I still contend I would have work done to the rifle, or I would get rid of it if it would not feed anything but a round nose and I intended to use it for DG. I have a 510 Wells, big Ruger action, it will not feed a flat nose of any sort. But it weighs 11 lbs or so, about 10 ft long it seems, I would never take it out beyond the range, so I don't give hoot in hell if it feeds or not. I use it to test .510s and that is about it. Does shoot great however! But I am sure a little work and it would feed and function. All my Winchesters feed and function with BBW#13s, North Forks and easy with the used to be barnes banded! Never ever had an issue with any of them. Can't speak for others.

I am a No Compromise bastard when it comes to these things. I rely upon Winchesters and nothing else. I work the hell out of them before going on a hunt. Many hundreds of rounds, feed and function all part of it. I am a bitch with my loads, brass, everything. Each load must be chambered and put up zero fuss before packed for a trip. I take the best bullet I can take and I know will work long before leaving. That's what all the terminal test work is about! I am just not going to the field with a faulty rifle, and a piss poor bullet, there are many other things that one needs his mind on, and one needs confidence that ones rifle is going to work proper, and one needs confidence that the bullet WILL DO WHAT IS ASKED OF IT! I am NOT WILLING, to sacrifice feed and function, nor performance of the bullet! Not going there, end of story!

Michael

quote:

"A heinous act against performance, an insult to shooters and DG Hunters all over the world!" Easy Michael! Barnes is a good company.

That was pretty good eh? HEH HEH......

Damn, that's a good line! I don't know who come up with that? LOL LOL....

Hey, it is insulting the way they are double speaking! And yes, they USED to be a good company, but they are not managed by the same folks that made them what they, Were?

M

I suspect the underlying truth is the Barnes FN is too long, or for some reason they don't perform, but doubt it has anything to do with the FN..

I have used both North Fork flat nose and GS Custom flat nose and old Bridger flat noses which were the hardest of all, but they are no longer available due to the makers health..

I will continue to use the FN as they have always worked for me 110%, and the FN design kills better on shoulder shots, the rest is spectacular BS IMO..

That said, I have also used Woodleigh RN and Hornadys old RN solids for many years and they also worked just fine. In fact its been many years and lots of DG shot by me and others I have observed and I can't even remember the last solid failure I have seen, most of the failures I am witness were many years ago.

But I have not done extensive testing on gob of jello only on many buffalo, Hippo and elephant. IMO if it ain't broke don't fix it..

I raise the flag on this thread!

It is true that FN bullets of some makes simply will not feed in some bolt rifles.

I have never had any problems with .458" or .510" Barnes banded FN solids in my rifles. There seems to be plenty of ogive on them.

I have not used the Barnes banded FN solids in .375" or .416", however.

See regular feeding issues on .458 win rifles converted to .458 Lott using the flat nosed design. Never seen a problem in .375 or .416. in rifles that worked. I stress rifles that worked. About 10% of clients arriving in Africa bring rifles that have issues- Many of the CZ rifles will not feed soft points reliably- particularly the .458 Win's (but do feed barnes FN!) Others have problems when the bolt is cycled fast (case not ejected like on the Ruger Mk II's in .416 rigby) etc, safety catches that don't work properly, magazine boxes that are self emptying on the first shot etc etc.

I can see the argument for making factory ammo as reliable as possible.

And re the tests being carried out by the Kruger park team under Richard Sowry - hopefully that will be collated and published one day. They have the advantage of being able to put bullet throgh fresh elephant leg bones Like we have access to in Zim. The results are cirtainly mixed. Of the commonly available bullts in South Africa the Dzombo seems to be the best and this is a FN design. BUT there are a couple of others tried by richard that are not freely available in SA that have given deeper penetration. I look forward to his tests using the Woodleigh Hydro...

Ganyana,

You might suggest to Richard that he try to 550 grain Woodleigh RN solid from the 450 Rigby, if he hasn't already. It should be possible to get 2,200 to 2,250 fps from that rifle. I think he will be impressed.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Ganyana,

You might suggest to Richard that he try to 550 grain Woodleigh RN solid from the 450 Rigby, if he hasn't already. It should be possible to get 2,200 to 2,250 fps from that rifle. I think he will be impressed.

465H&H

Might as well load up to 2330-2400 fps with that Rigby case (similar capacity to 460 Weatherby). It is a 7000 ftlb cartridge.

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Ganyana,

You might suggest to Richard that he try to 550 grain Woodleigh RN solid from the 450 Rigby, if he hasn't already. It should be possible to get 2,200 to 2,250 fps from that rifle. I think he will be impressed.

465H&H

Might as well load up to 2330-2400 fps with that Rigby case (similar capacity to 460 Weatherby). It is a 7000 ftlb cartridge.

Since I already know what that bullet will do as far as penetration from a Lott at 2,150 fps, I see no need for anything even as high as 2,250 fps. The added recoil in my opinion just isn't worth it.

465H&H

Hi Walt

I know they have tried both 500grn and 550grn Woodleighs. Not sure at what velocity though - He did send me a bunch of results about a year back. Too high a velocity wasn't kind on the 500grn woodleighs or Horniday's - as we both know. Also no point in pushing the performance of the cartridge above standard pressures - not at those temperatures anyway