quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Racehorse cannon bones flex a great extent when they run. Since they are living...they have the ability to adapt to stress...ie: thicken and harden as needed. The bending stress of racing really makes them thicken over time.

Where do cutters and reiners fit into that?

The rear cannon bone in the reiners and cutters is very hard, dense, and thick...rivals the cannons of the racehorse. The forelimbs of the western performance horse is still very hard, dense, and thick but only 1/2 to 3/4 of the racehorse...assuming they are in heavy training.

Alf, you are clearly a knowledgeable, experienced man. I am the home, hobby guy referred to in one of your responses. I readily admit that my (extensive ) 40+ years of learning is entirely based on N . American animals WITH expanding bullets. I do not know , nor have I ever met Michael458. I do really appreciate the tireless hours of study expended and shared. Before I found AR, I tested my own handloads in my own saturated paper medium to ensure I was humanely 'harvesting' animals and to test / verify bullet makers claims . I learned a great deal and had fun . In my, nonscientific, testing, I became pretty confident that my testing was valid AFTER I used my tested loads on animals. NO, the results were not exactly the same. I actually had better terminal ballistic performance in animals than my test material. I clearly understand and freely admit that the medium, results, repeatability and test itself are NOT exactly the same as all animals all the time. BUT, I do believe the results did provide knowledge that was useful to me as the trigger puller. I am not selling anything to anybody . I will say and recommend to anyone who has questions a/ b a bullet they use or want to use, test it for yourself. Study the results. Make your own conclusions.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Texas Killartist:
Alf, you are clearly a knowledgeable, experienced man. I am the home, hobby guy referred to in one of your responses. I readily admit that my (extensive ) 40+ years of learning is entirely based on N . American animals WITH expanding bullets. I do not know , nor have I ever met Michael458. I do really appreciate the tireless hours of study expended and shared. Before I found AR, I tested my own handloads in my own saturated paper medium to ensure I was humanely 'harvesting' animals and to test / verify bullet makers claims . I learned a great deal and had fun . In my, nonscientific, testing, I became pretty confident that my testing was valid AFTER I used my tested loads on animals. NO, the results were not exactly the same. I actually had better terminal ballistic performance in animals than my test material. I clearly understand and freely admit that the medium, results, repeatability and test itself are NOT exactly the same as all animals all the time. BUT, I do believe the results did provide knowledge that was useful to me as the trigger puller. I am not selling anything to anybody . I will say and recommend to anyone who has questions a/ b a bullet they use or want to use, test it for yourself. Study the results. Make your own conclusions.[/QUOTE)

And I would add to this excellent post: Study and analyse with discernment, clarity, and without prejudice, the results found by those with extensive hunting experience, both historical and contemporary, on African LG and DG, as well as in North America and elsewhere.

We tend to agree with opinions and views that support our own biases until something goes haywire that seems to contradict previously held views.

I'm 78 with over 60 years of hunting, but in Canada only... except for one short trip on African soil where I did some limited hunting. But I'm open to learn from both Alf and what Michael is teaching through "home built" testing, as well as lots of personal experience in Africa, Australia, etc.

Thanks to both: a scientist and an entrepreneur!

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

I have used the 404, 416, and 450-400 with GS Customs, Bridger, and Northfork flat nose solids on quite a number of buffalo without any complaints at all..My longest shot was at 225 yards but that was with a Northfork soft point in the 416, my only instant kill btw..

My all time favorite buffalo bullet is the Northfork cup point, its expands a bit and penetrates like a solid..I have lots of recovered cup points and solids fron going away shots at various distances..

Today there are lots of good bullets out there and they most all work great..the days of bullet failure are pretty much a thing of the past if one uses his head in choosing them..
Barnes, GS Customs, Northfork, and the newer 416 Nosler partition is awesome..and don't overlook the Woodleighs, they are still top notch..We could play best bullet games back in the early 50s and 60s, but anymore is just campfire jabber, interresting but of little sugnificance.

I do believe the heavy flat nose solids are the best solid if they will feed in your gun and thats critical so if not rest assured the RN woodlieghs still do a good job, and feed like poop thru a goose.

Lane,
I have never given any thought to the comparison of horses bones to bovine bone as per your posts, and I find them more than interesting, and after giveing that some thought, it comes to mind that a zebra shot in the leg can travel faster, longer, and perhaps survive better than a buffalo that will stop and bush up fairly quickly with a broken leg or so it seems to me. I always allowed that the buff was meaner and just chose to fight, and that may be but it could also support your posts as he suffers more trama than the horse like animal...just some thoughts and based solely on your posts, I may be totally off base.

I so know that horses are non preditors and their defenses are flight thus a stonger more flexible leg structure as you explained, and cattle likewise but to a lesser degree for whatever reason and that bovines can become more aggressive much quicker. Anyway its a darn interesting thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
We could play best bullet games back in the early 50s and 60s, but anymore is just campfire jabber, interresting but of little sugnificance.

I believe an exception to this statement would be the Hornady DGX. The other DG bullets are pretty predictable in terms of performance, but the DGX ... not so much!

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

A RN will penetrate more than adequately to reach the brain or the skull/spine joint before it turns to travel base first. When it does turn, it does it begins in or near the skull, dumping all of the energy for maximum effect on the elephants if the brain is missed. This often results in knocking down the ele or even knocking it unconcious, buying time to make a killing second shot. RN's do not veer in elephant heads, and their incidence of veering in elephant bodies appears to be no worse than FN's. (Though they do turn to travel base first.) What holds true for the 458wm, also hold true for the 416's, 404J and the 450/400's, and also seems to hold true for the 375H&H.

A FN will penetrate more than adequately but expends its energy over a greater distance and time, not much expended in the skull or near. But the penetration may be needed for a second or subsequent shot, and it is preferred for its penetration for those shots.

JPK

The bolded portion above cannot be substantiated as a blanket statement as the majority of failed head-shot causes have not been verified.

I stipulate that in the small sample size looked at critically by JPK and .465 H&H that their data is suggestive that the incidence may be low.

Just back from a sailfishing trip to Mexico, fishing was great!

Lane,

In your post quoted above you try to make a point that the actual observed results constitute a small sample, a couple of posts later you tout your much, much smaller sample of FN results in the field as if it were verification...

What is good or bad for the goose is good or bad for the gander. You cannot complain that a sample of dozens fails confirm a conclusion and then tout that a sample of a handful confirms a conclusion.

Also, FWIW, I have chased every failed brain shot with the exception of the two on the charging bull (that was two FN's btw) and the single, unique feature of my failed brain shots is poor shooting, typically caused by a failure to recognize where the bullet needed to impact to reach the brain of the elephant.

JPK

Hi JPK,

Hope you had a swell fishing trip. By all means I am not holding my number game shot with FNS as proof of anything. You have shoot more than I for sure.

However, I have done my own testing in dead cattle carcasses.

My only point was that you state "round nose solids do not veer in elephant heads". My point is that in your experience they may not...but that is not enough to say they "do not veer". You could state that in my experience they do not. But I know of some specific examples where they have.

Did you catch some fish? Where did you go?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Hi JPK,

Hope you had a swell fishing trip. By all means I am not holding my number game shot with FNS as proof of anything. You have shoot more than I for sure.

However, I have done my own testing in dead cattle carcasses.

My only point was that you state "round nose solids do not veer in elephant heads". My point is that in your experience they may not...but that is not enough to say they "do not veer". You could state that in my experience they do not. But I know of some specific examples where they have.

Did you catch some fish? Where did you go?

Did you dig them out? Or did you observe them being dug out? If not.... how do you know?

Here is your quote, implying that your small sample leads to the conclusion that Michael's wet newsprint tests are predictive of bullet performance in elephant heads, "I will add though that every thing I have shot with the flat nose monolithic solids...they have performed similar to what Michael has hypothesized. Smiler"

Keep this in mind:

RN: Between 465H&H and I we have, not including test shots into dead elephants, about forty or so, if you add in the tests shots it is closer to 100 with RN alone. Not a single instance of veering.

FN: I have a sample of about eight first shot and maybe a dozen more into dead elephants. One instance of veering, though not significant enough to cause a missed frontal brain shot, and one instance of deflection off of bone.

We went down to Isla Mujeres, an island off the coast of the Yucatan Peninsula, not far from Cancun. We fished on an American boat, the Contango, run by Captain Daryl Brower, who is an excellent captain and who I have had run my boat for several weeks here and there teaching my captain some advanced marlin fishing techniques. There is a late winter/early spring run of sailfish down there. We struggled on Sunday, gave up after half a day on Monday and went mutton and cubera snapper fishing and then had a field day on Tuesday, releasing 26. My buds didn't have a lot of experience and truly sucked at first, but they were getting the hang of hooking billfish toward the end, and they were having a blast. With a good crew of anglers, there were enough fish around for a 50+ fish day, which is pretty epic on the scale of things.

JPK

I personally have no cases to share of RN solids veering in ele heads albeit I do in buffalo. But there are some examples of RN veers in ele heads posted here on AR from years past. Ivan Carter shared an experience as well in a hunting report he posted.

While .465 H&H agrees with you that the heavy steel jacketed Woodleighs are good too...I don't remember him saying that he has had any issue with the FN solids either...maybe I forgot.

Alf argues that we can't draw strict conclusions from the media testing and that some of the physics quoted are questionable...but he still shoots FN solids from his good experiences will them compared to round.

You are the only person I know of that feels that they have had an issue with a FN solid veering or deflecting off bone in ele heads.

Because of these facts...I just noted that your statement that "RN solids do ot veer in ele heads" could not be sustantiated as a blanket statement. Certainly a statement saying that in you experience they do not is fine.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I personally have no cases to share of RN solids veering in ele heads albeit I do in buffalo. But there are some examples of RN veers in ele heads posted here on AR from years past. Ivan Carter shared an experience as well in a hunting report he posted.

While .465 H&H agrees with you that the heavy steel jacketed Woodleighs are good too...I don't remember him saying that he has had any issue with the FN solids either...maybe I forgot.

Alf argues that we can't draw strict conclusions from the media testing and that some of the physics quoted are questionable...but he still shoots FN solids from his good experiences will them compared to round.

You are the only person I know of that feels that they have had an issue with a FN solid veering or deflecting off bone in ele heads.

Because of these facts...I just noted that your statement that "RN solids do ot veer in ele heads" could not be sustantiated as a blanket statement. Certainly a statement saying that in you experience they do not is fine.

I don't believe 465H&H has used FN solids in elephant heads, but I'm not sure.

I would believe Ivan Carter, I think. But he has his reputation to protect, and missing a brain shot doesn't do it any good, especially given his style with elephants. As for AR members, I don't think I'd give a lot of merit to many, who either have an agenda and don't let the truth stand in the way, don't do the time consuming, messy, shitty job of digging for bullets or having elephant heads chopped up for them (or paying the tracker the extra $'s to do it either,) and might be unwilling to admit the whole friggin' world that they blew what was likely their one and only shot at an elephant. So, I would trust the report of some, but not all.

[As an aside, you have to have noticed that the incidence of perfect brain shots reported here on AR is incredibly high compared to that noted by PH's. And for that matter I have read a lot of "I stood the charge" posts, but every PH I have discussed the matter with has told me that a good 50% of hunters break and run when an ele gets close in a mock or real charge. I believe that an AR member, simply by virtue of having enough interest to be an AR member, is likely to be a better shot and less likely to bolt, but ... For example, there was a member who had a couple of D'Arcy Echols rifles, Allen something, and posed as the world's greatest hunter, shot, etc, etc, etc. I met him in person just as he was leaving the Save Conservancy and I was arriving to hunt a tuskless. As soon as he was gone his PH, who I know pretty well, told me it was a relieve to get rid of him he was such a miserable shot and such a poor hunter, unsafe with his riffles and awkward in handling them...]

I had a RN, shot at a 3/4 going away angle, enter a buff's back, pass through the the spine and continue on on the far side traveling between the hide and the rib cage. If it had gone straight it would have punched through the hide on the off side of the spine. You could see the bullet track through the hide, like a mole tunnel in a yard. And you could see when it began to turn base first. I think it lost a lot of it's energy passing through the spine. It was a 2035fps load.

If the statement, "RN solids do not veer in elephant heads." is overly broad then any similar statement regarding FN solids is even more so, given the high incidence of failing to travel straight in elephant heads compared to RN solids.

JPK

-

What about the shot into a buffalo that went around and came back and hit the shooter?

that needs to be factored in.

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I personally have no cases to share of RN solids veering in ele heads albeit I do in buffalo. But there are some examples of RN veers in ele heads posted here on AR from years past. Ivan Carter shared an experience as well in a hunting report he posted.

While .465 H&H agrees with you that the heavy steel jacketed Woodleighs are good too...I don't remember him saying that he has had any issue with the FN solids either...maybe I forgot.

Alf argues that we can't draw strict conclusions from the media testing and that some of the physics quoted are questionable...but he still shoots FN solids from his good experiences will them compared to round.

You are the only person I know of that feels that they have had an issue with a FN solid veering or deflecting off bone in ele heads.

Because of these facts...I just noted that your statement that "RN solids do ot veer in ele heads" could not be sustantiated as a blanket statement. Certainly a statement saying that in you experience they do not is fine.

I don't believe 465H&H has used FN solids in elephant heads, but I'm not sure.

I had a RN, shot at a 3/4 going away angle, enter a buff's back, pass through the the spine and continue on on the far side traveling between the hide and the rib cage. If it had gone straight it would have punched through the hide on the off side of the spine. You could see the bullet track through the hide, like a mole tunnel in a yard. And you could see when it began to turn base first. I think it lost a lot of it's energy passing through the spine. It was a 2035fps load.

If the statement, "RN solids do not veer in elephant heads." is overly broad then any similar statement regarding FN solids is even more so, given the high incidence of failing to travel straight in elephant heads compared to RN solids.

JPK

Man...I can tell you have never published anything in a peer-reviewed journal...because there is NO proof of that statement either. For one...you can NOT account for every RN solid that has been shot into an ele head. For all you know there could be 100's that have veered and you have 1or 2 speculative cases of FN solids that you believe did. If this were a scientific journal...those would get tossed...an rightfully so. As long as you mentioned that it was in limited experience...they would allow you to briefly mention in the discussion...but that is it.

I will let .465 H&H speak for hisself...but I recollect that he has...but I could be wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack D Bold:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
I can't imagine a 500gr,Woodleigh fmj bending.I've recovered at least 30 or 40 from a dirt mound,sometimes wet and rocky and not one was bent.I fired these from both my lott and 458wm.I have also used a sledge hammer on a few Woodleighs and Hornadys and still,I did not see one bend.

How about this one - bent and veered in an ele's noggin last month.

Maybe JDB will re-add the pic.

Another good example to throw out.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I personally have no cases to share of RN solids veering in ele heads albeit I do in buffalo. But there are some examples of RN veers in ele heads posted here on AR from years past. Ivan Carter shared an experience as well in a hunting report he posted.

While .465 H&H agrees with you that the heavy steel jacketed Woodleighs are good too...I don't remember him saying that he has had any issue with the FN solids either...maybe I forgot.

Alf argues that we can't draw strict conclusions from the media testing and that some of the physics quoted are questionable...but he still shoots FN solids from his good experiences will them compared to round.

You are the only person I know of that feels that they have had an issue with a FN solid veering or deflecting off bone in ele heads.

Because of these facts...I just noted that your statement that "RN solids do ot veer in ele heads" could not be sustantiated as a blanket statement. Certainly a statement saying that in you experience they do not is fine.

I don't believe 465H&H has used FN solids in elephant heads, but I'm not sure.

I had a RN, shot at a 3/4 going away angle, enter a buff's back, pass through the the spine and continue on on the far side traveling between the hide and the rib cage. If it had gone straight it would have punched through the hide on the off side of the spine. You could see the bullet track through the hide, like a mole tunnel in a yard. And you could see when it began to turn base first. I think it lost a lot of it's energy passing through the spine. It was a 2035fps load.

If the statement, "RN solids do not veer in elephant heads." is overly broad then any similar statement regarding FN solids is even more so, given the high incidence of failing to travel straight in elephant heads compared to RN solids.

JPK

Man...I can tell you have never published anything in a peer-reviewed journal...because there is NO proof of that statement either. For one...you can NOT account for every RN solid that has been shot into an ele head. For all you know there could be 100's that have veered and you have 1or 2 speculative cases of FN solids that you believe did. If this were a scientific journal...those would get tossed...an rightfully so. As long as you mentioned that it was in limited experience...they would allow you to briefly mention in the discussion...but that is it.

I will let .465 H&H speak for hisself...but I recollect that he has...but I could be wrong.

WRT the two FN's of mine that didn't travel straight, there is no speculation at all regarding one, and some piecing of evidence required of the other. One was found off course and it's curving trajectory tracked from entrance to where the bullet was found. The other, the groove cut into the bone was found, and where the bullet struck the shoulder after glancing off the zygomatic arch was found. Since the air between the zygomatic arch and the shoulder wound leaves no track, we have to piece together the evidence, but not so with the first event.

If I were to hold you to the same standard that you are holding me to, there is no proof that I have ever seen of a RN veering, it has all been speculation drawn from (weak) evidence and none was a repeatable event.

I recognize that the two FN's that veered might be evidence of an incident rate 2/10,000 or 2/1,000,000, but it may be 2/8 or even more frequent. You infer the lesser incident rate, I fear the greater.

Likewise, I recognize that the absolute lack veering RN's in 465H&H's and my combined sample of about 40 might not be evidence of a 0% incident rate. [But if the incident rate were significant, I believe there would be more evidence of it over the past 120yrs. (Referring to hemispherical RN's, there is significant evidence of more pointy RN's veering.)] A 0/40 incident rate, closer to a 0/100 rate when test shots are counted, does not support the undying inference that RN's veer frequently.

Hold your inferences and conclusions to the same standards.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
-

What about the shot into a buffalo that went around and came back and hit the shooter?

that needs to be factored in.

Ah yes, the "boomerang effect!"

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Jack D Bold:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
I can't imagine a 500gr,Woodleigh fmj bending.I've recovered at least 30 or 40 from a dirt mound,sometimes wet and rocky and not one was bent.I fired these from both my lott and 458wm.I have also used a sledge hammer on a few Woodleighs and Hornadys and still,I did not see one bend.

How about this one - bent and veered in an ele's noggin last month.

Maybe JDB will re-add the pic.

Another good example to throw out.

The first photo doesn't show, as I think you note. The second one shows bent Woodleighs. I have a collection of bent Woodleighs, all taken from elephant heads after traveling straight through them and then turning after that straight penetration. The Woodleighs very often show bending, flattening and splitting when they strike bone while turning to travel base first. That is NOT bullet failure.

When a Woodleigh strikes solid bone in the skull it punches through everything except the tusk sockets and tusks, when it hits the tusk sockets or tusks, or the leg bones, solid in an ele, with no marrow, square on they mushroom, just as shown, and just as FN's do. But the evidence I have seen reveal that when a Woodleigh strikes bone at an angle it still penetrates, while that isn't reliably the case of the NF FN's.

On 465H&H, I had thought he had shot eles with FN's too, but he posted in this thread or the other that he had only used them on buff, iirc. I will look for the post later. And I'll take a photo of the bullets I have, which includes a bunch of bent, flattened and/or split Woodleighs all found after substantial and sufficient straight line penetration in elephant heads, except one, which is the one recovered from the buff that broke the spine and then followed the rib cage.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by 416Tanzan:
-

What about the shot into a buffalo that went around and came back and hit the shooter?

that needs to be factored in.

There is evidence of Woodleighs and other RN's veering in muscle, I've had it happen on a buff, but then, we all know that for body shots a FN is the superior choice due to its deeper and generally straight penetration.

Lane's and my debate is centered on performance in elephant heads, where I have had two FN's fail to travel straight out of eight first shots into elephant heads. One veered, albeit after penetrating the brain on a frontal shot, the other glanced off of the zygomatic arch, and neither 465H&H or I have had a Woodliegh veer out of about 40 first shots into elephant heads, and a total of about 100 traveling straight when tests shots are included.

JPK

The main thing I am stating is that you cannot (actually you can but incorrectly) make a blanket statement that says RN solids do not veer in ele heads. In your experience...that has been true and I accept your word.

"I" have been careful to not make any blanket statements as I don't have proof enough to support one. That is all I was saying.

If I can get him too...I will try to get Ivan Carter to post his example of a round-nose solid veering through a ele head and missing the brain...he has a good exmple of it.

Woodleigh solids have killed many ele...I stipulate that fact. But as my Uncle Clinton always says in a case like this: "there is more than one way to kill a cat than just choking them to death on butter".

I have become convinced that the the CEB BBW #13 solid brass solid is the best ele bullet we have available today. You remain unconvinced which is fine. Everyone is entitled to there opinion...as long as you don't make blanket statements like: "round nose solids do not veer in ele heads". Because...for one...you have not been present when the vast majority were shot. And secondly...I have seen 2 cases where they have...Jack D. Bold's and Ivan's.

I was just arguing with your broad statement...nothing else.

quote:

Lane's and my debate is centered on performance in elephant heads, where I have had two FN's fail to travel straight out of eight first shots into elephant heads. One veered, albeit after penetrating the brain on a frontal shot, the other glanced off of the zygomatic arch, and neither 465H&H or I have had a Woodliegh veer out of about 40 first shots into elephant heads, and a total of about 100 traveling straight when tests shots are included.

JPK

Have you fired the factory loaded Woodleigh RN FMJ Solid from the 470 NE (500gr) and/or 500 Jeffery (535gr) on elephant frontal head shots?

If so, what has been your experience?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
The main thing I am stating is that you cannot (actually you can but incorrectly) make a blanket statement that says RN solids do not veer in ele heads. In your experience...that has been true and I accept your word.

"I" have been careful to not make any blanket statements as I don't have proof enough to support one. That is all I was saying.

If I can get him too...I will try to get Ivan Carter to post his example of a round-nose solid veering through a ele head and missing the brain...he has a good exmple of it.

Woodleigh solids have killed many ele...I stipulate that fact. But as my Uncle Clinton always says in a case like this: "there is more than one way to kill a cat than just choking them to death on butter".

I have become convinced that the the CEB BBW #13 solid brass solid is the best ele bullet we have available today. You remain unconvinced which is fine. Everyone is entitled to there opinion...as long as you don't make blanket statements like: "round nose solids do not veer in ele heads". Because...for one...you have not been present when the vast majority were shot. And secondly...I have seen 2 cases where they have...Jack D. Bold's and Ivan's.

I was just arguing with your broad statement...nothing else.

How do you know Jack's veered? Bending or otherwise deforming occurs when they penetrate straight so it isn't evidence of veering (I can't see the photo or read his description of how he determined it veered.)

I would like to hear the same regarding Ivan too. He is interested in topics like this so maybe he'll pitch in.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:

quote:

Lane's and my debate is centered on performance in elephant heads, where I have had two FN's fail to travel straight out of eight first shots into elephant heads. One veered, albeit after penetrating the brain on a frontal shot, the other glanced off of the zygomatic arch, and neither 465H&H or I have had a Woodliegh veer out of about 40 first shots into elephant heads, and a total of about 100 traveling straight when tests shots are included.

JPK

Have you fired the factory loaded Woodleigh RN FMJ Solid from the 470 NE (500gr) and/or 500 Jeffery (535gr) on elephant frontal head shots?

If so, what has been your experience?

Re the 470NE, Rich Tabor, who was my PH at the time, killed one ele with a frontal and we dug it out, it went straight. In the interest of seeing if his results were different than mine he also fired rounds into dead ele skulls. These traveled straight too, but the tests are second shots or third or... and then skull integrity becomes an additional variable.

I try to shoot far enough from one hole to get independent holes with no interaction, and so did Rich, and you can do this maybe four times if the original killing shot was a frontal without having "shared damage" to the honeycomb or the thin outer shell. But at some point, you wonder if the hard shell cranium surrounding the brain and under the honeycomb is merely holed three or four times or has cracked or fractured. Chopping open a head is messy business and it can be difficult to determine after the fact if the cranium shell was intact with holes or fractured. We tried a chainsaw, but that was even messier.

Rich's 470 load was a little hotter and had more velocity than typical for a Kynoch factory load. Rich's ran about 2,200fps, iirc.

Re the 500NE, 500Grains, who was booted from the site a number of years ago, and who did both extensive elephant hunting, primarily with the 500NE, and extensive testing, never had one veer on a first shot or test shot that I recall him writing about. His loads mirrored factory loads and shot to regulation in his Searcy 500NE and his Hambrusch 500NE.

Hope this helps,

JPK

JPK,
Yes it does. Thanks.

As a matter of interest, this quote from Alf:

quote:

An insistence that somehow the relationship between mass and the projected surface area as expressed by the concept of sectional density suddenly is no longer applicable when using so called modern bullets.

GS custom went so far as to actually publish a whole article on their website claiming this ! What they did was to deny the very laws of Newton and Euler. This is pseudoscience at its worst !

refers to an article I wrote that first appeared in the Big Bore Journal. It was not intended to be science. It simply put the concept of sectional density in the light it should have been all along. The article is intended to be tongue in cheek but truthful.

Here is a link to the article.

To answer the question posed above, I have used FN solids on elephants but not on buffalo. If memory serves me correctly I have taken one bull with a 458 Win TB Sledgehammer, four with NF FN solids, three with Hornady DGS, and two with CEB #13s.

All performed as I expected. The exception was that I was very surprised that the amount of penetration I observed from FN solids was much greater in soft tissue, but it was equaled if not exceeded by RN penetration in elephant heads. This was true of angled frontal head shots as well as top down or brain shots from behind the ear directed forward. The total of FN shots from initial shots and finishing shots totaled 24, all but five of those shots were head shots. In addition I have fired another 41 RN solids into elephants.

I have never been able to verify any significant veering from any solid bullet so far. Not all of these bullets were traced for the length of their penetration in head shots as the work required to adequately follow the bullet path is a huge undertaking. In many cases, it was not practical to do it in the field.

I can not say that veering doesn't occur with either RN or FN bullets in elephant heads or in buff or elephant soft tissue. What I can say is that in my experience it is a very rare occurrence and it is not something I am concerned about. I also think we spend way to much time on here worrying about it.

There is a potential for any solid bullet to veer, esp if a very hard round bone is hit a glancing blow. Such a glancing blow has to destabilize that bullet no matter what the nose shape is. Both FN nosed and RN bullets have the potential to veer off course on a glancing blow and at this time there is no credible information that one bullet shape is any less likely to veer. That is a question that still is unanswered. JPK has given us a instance of a FN solid veering on hitting the zygomatic arch of an elephant, in my opinion if the bullet had been a RN solid it may have also veered.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
As a matter of interest, this quote from Alf:

quote:

An insistence that somehow the relationship between mass and the projected surface area as expressed by the concept of sectional density suddenly is no longer applicable when using so called modern bullets.

GS custom went so far as to actually publish a whole article on their website claiming this ! What they did was to deny the very laws of Newton and Euler. This is pseudoscience at its worst !

refers to an article I wrote that first appeared in the Big Bore Journal. It was not intended to be science. It simply put the concept of sectional density in the light it should have been all along. The article is intended to be tongue in cheek but truthful.

Here is a link to the article.

I enjoyed the article. The tongue-in-cheek people-speak questioning you presented is very good. Unfortunately answers are typically thrown in mathematical-speak without a relating people-speak version for us 'non PHDs'.

I give the article a -

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
To answer the question posed above, I have used FN solids on elephants but not on buffalo. If memory serves me correctly I have taken one bull with a 458 Win TB Sledgehammer, four with NF FN solids, three with Hornady DGS, and two with CEB #13s.

All performed as I expected. The exception was that I was very surprised that the amount of penetration I observed from FN solids was much greater in soft tissue, but it was equaled if not exceeded by RN penetration in elephant heads. This was true of angled frontal head shots as well as top down or brain shots from behind the ear directed forward. The total of FN shots from initial shots and finishing shots totaled 24, all but five of those shots were head shots. In addition I have fired another 41 RN solids into elephants.

I have never been able to verify any significant veering from any solid bullet so far. Not all of these bullets were traced for the length of their penetration in head shots as the work required to adequately follow the bullet path is a huge undertaking. In many cases, it was not practical to do it in the field.

I can not say that veering doesn't occur with either RN or FN bullets in elephant heads or in buff or elephant soft tissue. What I can say is that in my experience it is a very rare occurrence and it is not something I am concerned about. I also think we spend way to much time on here worrying about it.

There is a potential for any solid bullet to veer, esp if a very hard round bone is hit a glancing blow. Such a glancing blow has to destabilize that bullet no matter what the nose shape is. Both FN nosed and RN bullets have the potential to veer off course on a glancing blow and at this time there is no credible information that one bullet shape is any less likely to veer. That is a question that still is unanswered. JPK has given us a instance of a FN solid veering on hitting the zygomatic arch of an elephant, in my opinion if the bullet had been a RN solid it may have also veered.

465H&H

I enjoyed your post H and I recollect some of these same comments being posted on the TBP thread.

I would like to set up some multi-layered test molds.

I think wet news print outside for like about 3-4 inches, then a big ballistic gel cube with some 4" schedule 80 pvc set into the gel. The PVC should be pre-filled with shredded wet news print packed in tight.

Then followed by more plain wet news print to catch the bullet.

Lane I think that could be an interesting test...

Myself, I'm looking forward to the 'well heeled' gentleman (or gentlemen) who purchase a large 3D machine and start producing some life sized synthetic African bull elephant heads. Cram the synthetic heads full of the appropriate non-animal matter to closely portray the composition of a live elephant head. Cover the stuffed skull with man-made material(s) closely matching the skin of a live elephant. And then fire humongous numbers of various C&C FMJ and monometal solids can be fired into these man-made composite elephant heads to determine just what happens with the bullets when fired from different angles into the heads. Better yet, make the skulls of different sizes so determine if that has any impact upon bullet performance.

Lane,
Any suggestions as to the appropriate man-made material(s) to use to closely match the skin covering an African bull elephant skull?

I forgot to include another large cow shot with the Woodleigh hydro. Both were head shots, no exit but an amazing amount of bone damage.

Lane,

As you probably already know, the long bones of elephant do not have hollow centers such as the cervids and bovids have. Their leg bones have a porous bone construction where the marrow cells are located. The natives have to boil these bones to get the bone marrow out. Their long bones are much more sturdy then most other animals.

465H&H

Its common knowledge that any bullet can and has veered after making contact with an elephants head, I have seen this on more than a few ocassions...For one thing it can depend on the twist of the rifle, and the settling of the yaw in the bullets, and many elephants are shot at very short range and the bullet is still tryin to settle down and if its yawing it will veer..Another example is if a bullet makes contact with the tusk on a frontal shot they tend to veer off track...
Bottom line to straight penetration is bullets veer in flesh and bone and teeth, fortunatly with todays bullets its not as usual as it used to be. I have also seen both softs and solids veer to some degree with body hits on buffalo. I had a solid go off course on a buffalos teeth, cut it in half, and part went in the jaw and out the jaw into the neck and shoulder and the other half went down his gullet..He was truly agrivated by that btw..Next shot was a brain shot..I recovered both halves of the first bullet.

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
I forgot to include another large cow shot with the Woodleigh hydro. Both were head shots, no exit but an amazing amount of bone damage.

Lane,

As you probably already know, the long bones of elephant do not have hollow centers such as the cervids and bovids have. Their leg bones have a porous bone construction where the marrow cells are located. The natives have to boil these bones to get the bone marrow out. Their long bones are much more sturdy then most other animals.

465H&H

Schedule 80 PVC is harder on the surface than living bone. If the PVC pipe was pre-tamped tightly full of wet paper...I bet the would closely approximate ele long bone. Use a wetter mix to approximate skull forehead.

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
Did you dig them out? Or did you observe them being dug out? If not.... how do you know?

JPK

Hey JPK,

Down in the Mopane's of the Zim's low veldt, my bull kept coming. As it was only day 4, I wasn't to keen to drop him, yet, But the more we looked, the more certain I was he was over 60. Couldn't pass him up. Jumbo kept coming, and up came my .470. At 20 yards or so, the bullet planted smack center of the second crinkle. The bull staggered and ran off. A few shots later and that bull went down

On the postmortem, we found a banana shaped woodleigh solid bunched behind his left ear. A clear right to right to right parabola, just like some of my golf shots. Clearly, not the result one would hope for. For my next ele hunt, the flat nose are coming with me. Just can't see taking that chance.

Granted, the sample is small, 1. But it's a 100% failure in my book. I am all for going with what you have the most confidence. If the RN work for you, awesome. But they are just not for me.

All the best

Jack

Jack,

Thanks for chiming in with the first hand info.

If you read the whole thread you would know that neither 465H&H or I have had a RN Woodleigh veer in an elephant head, but I have had two NF FN's fail to penetrate straight (three really, but one was an insurance shot that I pulled that smacked the tusk socket, which I don't think any .458" bullet can penetrate.

I have had one Woodleigh veer in a buff as well, and never a FN.

BTW, the 470NE seems to have the highest historical reported incidence of their so-called RN's veering, and that appears to be because they are not hemispherical RN's but have a nose closer to elliptical in shape.

JPK

quote:

BTW, the 470NE seems to have the highest historical reported incidence of their so-called RN's veering,

The 470NE also has the slowest twist rate in inches of any cartridge between 9.3 mm and .550" except a 444Marlin.

The twist in caliber of a 470NE is 44.23 and the closest to that, from 9.3 mm to .550", is a 45-70 at 43.86, excepting the 444Marlin which is 87.55.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
The 470NE also has the slowest twist rate in inches of any cartridge between 9.3 mm and .550" except a 444Marlin.
The twist in caliber of a 470NE is 44.23 and the closest to that, from 9.3 mm to .550", is a 45-70 at 43.86, excepting the 444Marlin which is 87.55.

470 NE C.I.P. twist is 1:533.0mm = 1:20.98" about 1:21".

No problem at all for a GSC FN .475/500-grainer, eh?


"Close range dangerous game hunting:
A stability factor (s/f) greater than 2.0 is required. A s/f of 2.5 is desirable for faster calibers. With FN bullets there is no upper limit to the s/f. If this bullet does not meet the requirement, use a shorter bullet."
(In a 1:10" twist McGowen-barreled 470 Capstick M70 I have, the STABILITY FACTOR is off-the-chart high.)


That is what I will use when I go after elephant with a Merkel.
It is quite stubby in monometal copper, so gyro-stabilized as well as straight-steered/shoulder-stabilized by the flat nose.
If the nose expands after impact with really heavy bone, like buffalo humerus, this shifts the CG forward and adds to stability.
Triple-stabilized, even in a 470 NE.
Stay away from the tusks in an elephant head, and it is all soft stuff, made for straight-line penetration by an FN monometal solid.


"At left is a 540gr FN (500NE) recovered from the ground after an insurance shot on an elephant head and, at right, an unfired GSC FN solid."
"If deformation happens in such a way that the bullet remains shoulder stabilised (flat meplat), and/or dart stabilised (center of gravity forward of the physical center) and with the ogive and shaft shielded from flow pressure (meplat close to or wider than bullet diameter), the bullet continues straight on during and after deformation."


Never trust a RN solid or FMJ in a 470 NE, OR ANY RIFLE, whatever the twist rate, whatever the game.
Whether the misbegotten old-style elliptical nose or a slightly blunter hemispherical nose, any Round Nose is much more likely to go squirrely than a Flat Nose.
Why use an RN FMJ or solid if there is a better choice?
Like:


Or:
North Fork .474/500gr FP old-style or new BBW-type nose profile,
which makes for a shorter bullet length.

Never a Blaser Shooter,
Rip
Riflecrank Internationale Permanente, DRSS, SSSS, BASS, LASS, SLSS
******************************************************
Self Appointed Poobah of C.R.I.P.

JPK:

quote:

BTW, the 470NE seems to have the highest historical reported incidence of their so-called RN's veering, and that appears to be because they are not hemispherical RN's but have a nose closer to elliptical in shape.

JPK you are most astute in your observation !

And Gerard NO ! you guys keep on looking in the wrong place for the answer ! and NO I certainly do not buy your latest excuse regarding what you wrote about sectional density, not when for years right here on AR you actually defended your position on Sectional density. Your reasoning is flawed !

Go back to basics, the answer lies in the aspect ratio of a oblong bullet.
It's not the nose shape per se that infers stability it is the distribution of mass ! Munk's formula ! ( After M.M Munk The aerdodynamic forces on airship hulls 1924)

When the first attempts were made by gunners to improve on the sectional density (read ability to overcome resistance of air ) of a projectile they found that by squeezing a round ball into a oblong shape they could improve on the range and accuracy of the projectile but with this the projectile became "unstable" hence the need to spin it and hence then the invention of rifling.

The instability of the elongated shape lay not in the shape of the nose per se but in the redistribution of mass and the position of the centre of mass relative to the point of contact with the air.
( Spinning a oblong body in motion has also brings about problems of it's own in the form of precession)

I will try and explain:
The bullets that we commonly use for target shooting and hunting are statically unstable, the reason for this is because the geometry ( Aspect Ratio) is chosen specifically to minimize drag during flight for accurate shooting over distance.
( enter the concept of BC and that directly proportional to the Sectional density of the projectile and inversely proportional to the form factor (i) of the projectile
This implies then that we need to render them dynamically stable by imparting spin ( rotational velocity)
The manner by which spin imparts stability is locked up in how much or little force would be needed to change the projectile’s motion
That means the relative inertia to change of a spinning mass relative to it’s axis of motion and a point on that axis where the external force is applied

In linear motion the statically unstable situation comes about when the Projectile centre of gravity (CG) lies behind the point of pressure (PP) and this allows for a overturning force ( overturning moment (M) ) to try and overturn the projectile so that it assumes a statically stable situation of CG in front of the PP ie. Dart stabilized.

When a body is spun it becomes stable because it’s mass, now referred to as angular mass acts as a counter force to the overturning force

The dimensional relationship of distribution of that mass relative to the point and axis of rotation major determining factors on how much force needs to be applied to bring about change in motion.

Thus the spinning bullet has physical qualities similar or equivalent to bodies in linear motion but now relative to the rotation motion. So forces evoked by the rotational motion are actually torque forces.
If unity is achieved between the gyroscopic force ( moment ) and the overturning moment the projectile is deemed statically stable. If the overturning moment is larger than the gyroscopic moment the bullet will show signs of instability.


In the Gyro theorem we see that stability of a spinning body is related to a number of conditions and parameters. The primary ballistic parameters on the bullet side are ( in no particular order)

1. The Axial moment of inertia (Ja)
2. The angular velocity of the projectile
3. The transverse moment ( radial moment ) of inertia ( Jq)
4. The mass ( mass density) of the projectile
5. The representative surface area of the projectile
6. The linear velocity of the bullet
7. Distance between the CG and the PP

on the target side we have

1. The mass density of the medium in which the bullet is moving
2. The Overturning moment coeffiecient
Munk’s Formula

Describes the overturning moment ( force) of a spin stabilized body in motion

M = R1 / 2 . v 2 sin ( 2a)(V-A Xg*)


Where:

M = Overturning moment
R1 = Target or air density
v = Velocity
a = Angle of attack
V = Projectile Volume
A = Cross sectional area of the end of the projectile
Xg* = Distance from the leading end of the projectile to the centre of gravity


Calculating correct twist angle and stability factor:

L = Projectile length
h = Nose length
d = projectile diameter


n = l = bullet length in calibers
d

k = h = Length of the nose
l

Mass m = π/4 . rp d3n(1-2k / 3)


Moment of inertia ( Mass moment of Inertia) or Angular mass:

This entity asumes the same effect as mass in linear motion, however now the mass is in rotational motion about a axis and relative to a point of rotation the CG.

In a 3 dimensional cartesian coordinate sytem the axial moment of inertia is the mass distribution during rotation relative to the axis of rotation and the Transverse moment of inertia ( read radial moment) being the distribution of mass perpendicualr to the axis of rotation.

These two entities are indicative of the magnitude force needed to accelerate the mass into rotation around the point of rotation relative to the axis or rotation and or then perpendicular to that axis.

Or conversely what it’s going to take to overturn that bullet already in motion.

The projectile having inertia to change in motion or if it’s having an inertia to alteration direction of motion.



Projectile parameters that influence stability include:

1. Projectile mass:

The greater the mass of the bullet the greater the stability... More inertia! ( because it takes a bigger force to get the heavy bullet to change direction of motion than the lighter bullet) Two bullets can be of equal dimension but the one made of a denser material ( more mass) will be more stable than the one with less dense material. Thus all things equal modern copper or brass monometals ( should based on mass density of metal type used likely be more unstable than a lead cored bullet)


2. Relationship of the Moments of inertia of the spinning bullet.

The fatter and shorter the bullet the greater the stability. A Sphere with a aspect ratio of 1 is deemed stable (L/d =1)

Consider the force needed to lifting a heavy object by use of a lever. If the lever arm is short more force needs to be applied to lift the object, if the lever arm is long however only a little force is needed to move or lift the object

This arises form the relationship of transverse moment of inertia ( Jq ) which in mathematical terms is equal to ½ the product of mass times the square of the radius of the of the bullet through the CG. So making the radius bigger has huge influence as does increasing mass.
The force required to overturn the bullet is directly related to the Transverse moment of inertia (Jq) , if Jq is small then it’s easier for the bullet to overturn.
This physical entity became known to engineers that design military bullets.


In looking at potential lethality of commonly used military hardball bullets we see this in play.
A small diameter relatively small mass, non deforming non fragmenting 22 caliber, spin stabilized in air - bullet will overturn more readily than a large diameter 7.62 or 8mm caliber similarly constructed bullet for a limited dimension dense target such as a human body. This Means that in a finite target such as a leg or thigh or even a torso the small bullet with its high velocity will overturn and cause a huge wound whilst the bigger slower bullet may not overturn in the target because the path in the target is too short for the instability to manifest.

( J Hand Surg Am. 1992 Sep;17(5):971-5.
Hand and forearm injuries from penetrating projectiles.
Fackler ML, Burkhalter WE.)

The overturning 22 cal is then just as lethal if not more than the larger stable bullet that does not overturn in target but only after it has left the target.

Then there is also the Axial moment of inertia (Ja) .

This is determined by the relative length of the bullet. Ja = 1/12 of the mass times the sum of 3 R squared plus the length of the bullet squared.

In the gyro theorem the relationships of Jq and Ja are described in this relationship:

Stability ( S) = directly proportional to Ja squared and inverse to Jq to the power 1

Thus Heavy bullets ( > mass ) are more stable than small mass bullets all else equal

Long bullet increases Ja relative to the Jq . Thus long bullets all else equal are in fact less stable.

HP’s , RN’s and FN’s are more stable than long ogived bullets because they decrease the Ja relative to the Jq.

It is therefore not the nose shape primarily that is the determinant of the behaviour it is what the shape or form does regarding the distribution of mass that is important.

3. Relative position of the SG within the bullet.

In air the optimal position of the CG is to the rear of the bullet in order to decrease drag by shape, By blunting the bullet or making it a HP makes it more stable; because this decreases the distance (lever arm) from the point of pressure(PP) ( the PP is a theoretical point where the sum of external forces act on the bullet ) to the CG.

If the lever arm is big it needs less energy to upset the bullet. That is why the longer the bullet the more spin ( read angular velocity) is needed to stabilize the bullet.
If the density of the target is high like in muscle or water the gyro no longer works ! That is why apart from setting up the initial pre impact attitude of the bullet the gyro effect is negated in the target. Muscle is 800 times more dense than air. There is spin rate out there, not even in a gain twist barrel that can over come the tip force generated in a dense target.
In a dense target the point of pressure is located at the contact area of the bullet to the target. As this is where external forces act on the bullet. In the FN of FN cylinder the PP may be located in front of the actual projectile and not on the projectile itself because of the stacking effect that may occur at the front of the flat surface.
Once the bullet has tumbled and it usually only does so once it becomes “more stable” because the CG now lies close to the PP

A bullet that mushrooms becomes very stable because the Jq increases dramatically, Ja gets less and the position of the PP to CG shortens. to flip a mushroomed bullet will take whole lot of force !

4. Linear velocity and magnitude of angular velocity. They are inter- related

High linear velocity increases drag force and energy available to overturn the projectile.

Angular velocity: high angular velocity stabilizes the projectile, the problem is when the projectile slows down in the target it becomes unstable like a spinning top that slows down and begins to wobble, at this point the angle of attack increases ( yaw) and the bullet overturns.


Target parameters:


Target density: The denser the target medium the bigger the force that acts to overturn the bullet.

This is the theory, so does it hold true in actual shooting scenarios?

When the 5.56 Nato was put forward as a cartridge ( bullet) for military small arms munitions it was compared to the 7.62 Nato.

The potential lethality of the little 5.56 was compared to 7.62 and here intuitively as hunters we all balked and stated no way, how can a small bullet be more lethal than a big heavy bullet like the 147 grain 7.62 Nato.

Well what no one contemplated in the hunting world was the full physical nature of projectile behaviour in target.

The ratio of side on surface to point forward contact surface (area) of a 55 gr 5.56 bullet is 2.68 whilst the 7.62 nato 147 gr is 2.94. It means that the 147 gr bullet increases its direct contact area with tissue more than when the small 22 cal nato bullet tumbles.
However the small bullet tumbles quickly in target and the human torso dimension for a kill is only 12 inches…. The bigger bullet being more stable often shoots through before tumbling making the 22 now actually potentially more lethal

The Jq on the 5.56 is 1.9 for the 7.62 Nato it is 9.6 and the CG of the 5.56 lies roughly at 51 % from it’s tip whilst the 7.62 lies at 62% from the tip.
Because of the small radial moment of inertia the 5.56 will flip quicker than the 7.62 though the Leverarm needed to flip the 7.62 is bigger than that of the 5.56.


In gelatine we see that the 5.56 will flip at about 3 cm whilst the 7.62 only starts its flip at about 9cm The ratio of the radial moment of inertia to the length of the bullet for the 7.62 in 6.9 and for the 5.56 it is 20.57

This led to the establishment of valid rule which determines how deep a projectile will penetrate before instability manifests. This depth referred to as the narrow channel length is directly proportional to the radial moment of inertia and inversely proportional to the length of the bullet. Increase the radial moment and the NC gets longer decrease the radial moment and the NC gets shorter

The 5.56 will tumble quicker and this is important in small volume target, blow ups of varmints and goafers but useless in large volume targets.
From this then a set of projectile parameters that determine whether they are stable or unstable. If we assume a symmetrical cylindrical body we can say that the following ballistic parameters are important.

1. Mass
2. Axial Moment of Inertia
3. Radial or transverse moment of inertia
4. Distance form the nose (or leading surface of the projectile) to the centre of mass
of the projectile.

None of tehse are even contemplated in all of the tests put forward regarding bullet behaviour or penetration ?

Nose shape, surface area etc does not enter into the equation though it becomes important when derivations are made based on the above ( drag mechanics)

The answer why certain bullets tend to veer or tumble in target has nothing primarily, directly to do with spin rate or nose shape but rather where mass is centred in the form. Spin rate other then setting up the direct pre impact yaw ( yaw and lift) plays no role because the density of the target is simply to great for the gyroscopic force to be of any consequence.

As to Sectional Density: A practical joke? Nope perhaps the joke is on whoever wrote that piece because right from the opening paragraph a systemic error in comprehension was made regarding what SD is.

It is not merely a number ! if we think that SD = m/A in a literal sense we have no clue as to what it really represents or how it came about.

SD is a derivative of a physical rule or law and its place in the philosophy of the physical model in which it is used has to be correctly applied.
In the context of the field of ballistics and specifically drag mechanics SD is the centre piece of all arguments on how projectiles fly and interact with their surroundings and the correct definition of this derivative is given as the ratio of a body's mass to the projected surface area in direction of motion This is not simply SD = m/A. SD = m/A is a number, the condition of motion is absent.

The ratio of mass to surface area in motion is representative of a process !
The value of the BC or SD as it appears on the box is useless unless something is added and that is motion !
Your piece written is basically proof of this commonly made mistake.

I see ALF has got his supercilliousness in a wad again.

Never a Blaser Shooter,
Rip
Riflecrank Internationale Permanente, DRSS, SSSS, BASS, LASS, SLSS
******************************************************
Self Appointed Poobah of C.R.I.P.

Flat nose vs round nose and the brain numbing analytical approach..

I think most forget where the concept of flat nose bullets were tested and proven first, handguns

If round nose bullets were superior, then flat-nose, LBT designs and the concept of proper nose profile and meplat would have not proven themselves on countless big game animals around the world.