F=MxA is reversible. When the projectile starts with substantial F and end with 0 F through deceleration all of that force, i.e. energy, was applied to the target.

In the case of stopping the elephant charge it was the ~10,000lb' of energy dumped into the elephant that stopped him, since the wound was neither to the CNS or to any organ. He did not bleed out and he was not incapacitated, he merely changed his behavior from charging to fleeing.

That is why I write that it was energy that stopped the elephant.

Would the elephant have changed his behavior with 8,000lb' of force? or 6,000? I don't know, but I do know that he changed his behavior with 10,000lb' of applied energy.

What McPhearson missed in so far as shooting at game vs. shooting at water is that water "heals" completely, leaving no wound, and energy is used in the "healing."

The wound channel remaining in game... hmmm. Alf, in water potential energy transferred to water is used to "heal" the cavity, where does that energy go when a game animal is the target and there remains a permanent wound channel? To heat?

JPK

After wading through 3 pages of this, the one question I didn't see answered, unless I missed it, is, does a 450 gr bullet traveling at 2150fps from a 458WM kill an animal deader than a 500 gr bullet traveling at 2040fps from a 458WM?

Just a side note: I there a season on ballistics gel :-)

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by capoward:

The 500gr bullet & 5000ft-lbs energy as an elephant stopper requirement eliminates the 'benchmark' 450 NE with its factory loaded 480gr bullet.

The original formula in the day of the three 450 Nitro expresses along with the 475 No2 and the 465H&H used a 480 grain bullet minimum. When these calibers become almost extinct and the 470 and 458 Win rulled the roost it was changed to the 500 grain bullet that they used. A rose by any other Name.....

465H&H

So...a .458 Win Mag will easily shoot a 450 gr NF FPS or a CEB #13 brass solid to 2250 fps with about 72 gr of A-2230. This combination yeilds the "magic" 5000 ft-lbf of Ek...5059 to be exact.

I doubt cordite shot the 480 gr .458 much faster than 2150 fps which would have been 4927 ft-lbf. The "old standard".

So 450 gr bullet out of the Win Mag with easily attainable velocities with out compressed loads is well above the bench mark anyway you slice it.

The "new standard" as .465 H&H put it is a 500 gr .458 going 2150 fps which gives 5132 ft-lbf of E.

If anybody thinks 50 gr from the "new standard" (not the old standard which actually was the standard and would only be difference of 30 gr), which is roughly just larger than a .22 LR bullet and 73 ft-lbf of E difference when using the "new standard" (when the "old standard" actaully had 200 ft-lbf less than the .450 going 2250) makes any difference to an animal the size of and ele in transferred energy or "shock" to an ele...well I have some ocean front property right here in Love Co. OK for you.

I think Lane summed it up well.
Modern .458/450-grain bullets of proper construction will flat out get the job done.
No .458/500-grainer need apply ...
... (edit) except for the unfortunate souls who are stuck with them for a double rifle regulated for such, instead of the proper 480-grainer ...

quote:

Originally posted by AlanFaulkner:
After wading through 3 pages of this, the one question I didn't see answered, unless I missed it, is, does a 450 gr bullet traveling at 2150fps from a 458WM kill an animal deader than a 500 gr bullet traveling at 2040fps from a 458WM?

Imo, the answer is: It depends!

For some shot aspects the greater penetration of the 450gr flat nose bullet is required. Quartering away would be one example.

For some shot aspect the bone penetrating reliability of the steel jacketed 500gr round nose solid is required.

Also, imo, 2040fps with a 500gr round nose is not much more than barely adequate. For whatever reason, if you add about 100fps to the 500gr's velocity it becomes a substabtially better performer as far as depth of straight line penetration. I believe the reason 100fps of MV adds such a margin of peformance is related to a round nose bullet's tendency to become unstable at low velocity in an elephant as it decelerates and to "tumble" (meaning over turn to travel base first.) The delay in reaching whatever velocity at which it becomes unstable provided by that additional 100fps results in substabtially deeper penetration. Penetration appears extemely limited once a bullet turns side to as it tumbles.

As far as utility on an accurate frontal brain shot, I see no difference.

On a side brain shot, if the angle requires punching through heavy bone, like the plate below the zygomatic arch, I believe the steel jacket round nose solid has the advantage in reliability (at 2135fps+.)

Since the first shot I make on an elephant is either a (preferred) frontal brain shot or a side brain shot, I load a Woodleigh 500gr round nose solid at 2135fps for the first shot for it's more reliable performance in heavy bone; since the second shot is either an insurance shot or a body shot required by a missed brain shot, and potentially at a poor angle, I load a 450gr FN at 2220fps for it's deep penetration.

Best of both worlds.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

Imo, the answer is: It depends!

For some shot aspects the greater penetration of the 450gr flat nose bullet is required. Quartering away would be one example.

For some shot aspect the bone penetrating reliability of the steel jacketed 500gr round nose solid is required.

JPK

Regarding bone penetration:
A brass or copper FN .458/450-grain SOLID at 2250-2400 fps is inferior to a Steel FMJ Round Nose .458/500-grainer at lesser velocity?
Isn't bone close to a first-order medium where resistance does not increase exponentially with velocity of penetrator?
Is not the shoulder stabilized FN solid inherently more stable in any live game animal of varying tissue types of whatever-order resistance,
and whatever incidence angle, or angle of attack?
Aren't the mysterious misses on elephant brain shooting due mostly to RN FMJ bullets fishtailing and veering off course?

All of JPK's FPS use, correct me if I am wrong JPK, is with the old nose profile NF which is not as optimal as the new nose profile. But I still don't buy bone penetration being a problem for old ones either.

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by AlanFaulkner:
After wading through 3 pages of this, the one question I didn't see answered, unless I missed it, is, does a 450 gr bullet traveling at 2150fps from a 458WM kill an animal deader than a 500 gr bullet traveling at 2040fps from a 458WM?

Imo, the answer is: It depends!

For some shot aspects the greater penetration of the 450gr flat nose bullet is required. Quartering away would be one example.

For some shot aspect the bone penetrating reliability of the steel jacketed 500gr round nose solid is required.

Also, imo, 2040fps with a 500gr round nose is not much more than barely adequate. For whatever reason, if you add about 100fps to the 500gr's velocity it becomes a substabtially better performer as far as depth of straight line penetration. I believe the reason 100fps of MV adds such a margin of peformance is related to a round nose bullet's tendency to become unstable at low velocity in an elephant as it decelerates and to "tumble" (meaning over turn to travel base first.) The delay in reaching whatever velocity at which it becomes unstable provided by that additional 100fps results in substabtially deeper penetration. Penetration appears extemely limited once a bullet turns side to as it tumbles.

As far as utility on an accurate frontal brain shot, I see no difference.

On a side brain shot, if the angle requires punching through heavy bone, like the plate below the zygomatic arch, I believe the steel jacket round nose solid has the advantage in reliability (at 2135fps+.)

Since the first shot I make on an elephant is either a (preferred) frontal brain shot or a side brain shot, I load a Woodleigh 500gr round nose solid at 2135fps for the first shot for it's more reliable performance in heavy bone; since the second shot is either an insurance shot or a body shot required by a missed brain shot, and potentially at a poor angle, I load a 450gr FN at 2220fps for it's deep penetration.

Best of both worlds.

JPK

Just to add a little reality to this topic ---
Most little league baseball players can throw a 500 gr bullet 100fps !! Does anyone really think that much addition velocity amounts to a substantial increase in penetration or killing power ?

One other thing you mentioned JPK was that brass might be better than copper but that you wouldn't shoot them in you guns.

Michael458 has pretty much proven that steel jacketed solids pretty much put the most strain on barrels and the brass CEB less than a Woodleigh soft.

If that is what you worried about.

quote:

I have yet to have to "track" a wounded animal with the TSX bullet when properly hit.

I sincerely wish I could say that! But I can't since a 350gr TSX at 2750 fps MV failed to terminate a medium bl. bear at 93 yards when solidly hit frontally in the chest! No evidence that the bullet even expanded at an impact of over 2400 fps! It made exit though, just in front of the right hip. It was pitch dark before I found the bear, which could have easily been lost.

In contrast to that, at the same location, several years earlier I shot a similar size bear at the exact same location (over bait) with an 1895 Marlin loaded with cheap 405gr Remingtons, at the same distance at an impact of about 1800 fps. The bullet penetrated but that bear was dead before it hit the ground!

So, I agree... bullet design is a very real key to the kind of success we anticipate. But also, caliber, impact velocity, momentum AND energy!

I've just written, and posted, blogs on rifle ballistics. Like Michael, I don't claim to be a pro, but I do observe, study, read, listen and, hopefully, learn from my experience and that of others.

And, fwiw, I've found nothing better than H335 for heavy bullets in both .458 WM and .45-70. H4895 has also proven itself.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:


Just to add a little reality to this topic ---
Most little league baseball players can throw a 500 gr bullet 100fps !! Does anyone really think that much addition velocity amounts to a substantial increase in penetration or killing power ?

100fps doesn't seem like much of an improvement, but it is about a 5% increase in impact velocity at close range. however, the increase in depth of penetration appears to be substantially greater than 5%. I have dug many bullets from elephants fired at 2035fps and at 2135fps MV, and the difference in penetration is substantial. I would estimate that penetration is increased roughly 9" or so and that represents an increase in penetration of about 25%.

However long in time and distance that bullet travels in target when fired at ~2135fps before it slows to the same speed the bullet fired at 2040 is traveling is the added penetration.

BTW 458only, AA2230 is better for the 458wm that H335 and is temperature insensative as well. I ilke H4895 too but the A2230 is better. Try some AA2230, you wil like it.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
All of JPK's FPS use, correct me if I am wrong JPK, is with the old nose profile NF which is not as optimal as the new nose profile. But I still don't buy bone penetration being a problem for old ones either.

Yes I think, and I still have a couple hundred I got from Mike when he thought he was going out of business. They would be generation two bullets since he changed groove number and spacing from the original bullets. About 5yrs since I got them.

As you know, I was at one point a full on fan of the flat nose NF's, but I had a couple of instances where they veered in target, in flesh not bone, probably due to nose deformation (the bullets that didn't track straingth were recovered) and two instances where they failed to penetrate heavy bone (heavy bone = not the honeycomb.) In one instance the bullet glanced off the heavy plate below and slightly forward of the ear hole, below the zygomatic arch. The elephant was killed and recovered, and the bone showed the divot where the bulllet stuck. In another, on a poor quartering on shot, but an insurance shot, the bullet was recovered after veering and in the shape of a bannana. The ele was down at the first shot, but that bullet ended up no where near the brain. I believe, based on prior performance, the Woodleighs would have done the proper job in both instances.

I have nt read all of Michael's posts on the topic of strain by different bullets, and don't know where or how he is measuring strain, but, as you know, I believe the NF's are the least harmful of the bunch. And unless Michael substantially changed the design of his bulllets, eleiminating the long bearing surface toward the base and instead installing grooves with sufficient room to accomodate material displace by the rifling from from the bearing surfaces, I won't shoot them, or any similar bullet.

Woodleigh softs are "sticky" bullets, and the evidence is the requirement to use loads for them that are identical or very close to those required for Woodleigh solids. Woodleigh solids are tough on a barrel, and that has been known for decades. But they have relief at the base, unlike many/most brass bullets.

I suppose that if a brass bullet has a sufficient number of and the proper spacing between grooves, and was custom made for the bore of the rifle, it would be almost as easy on the barrel as a NF, but I haven't seen one yet (but then, haven't looked lately.)

JPK

I have 2230 and in my experience is no better than H335 or H4895, with the obvious exception that one does not use as much.

H335 is recommended by Hornady for both the Win Mag and Lott. It is best or second best in Barnes #4 as well. Also, temp stable in my experience.

Still have 2230 and H4895 but will continue with H335. It has proven to be, to me, most accurate and consistent, just as Hornady says. Plus, 2230 is nearly impossible to find in my neck of the woods.

After reading Alf, I don't think I'll ever write on ballistics again!

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:


Just to add a little reality to this topic ---
Most little league baseball players can throw a 500 gr bullet 100fps !! Does anyone really think that much addition velocity amounts to a substantial increase in penetration or killing power ?

100fps doesn't seem like much of an improvement, but it is about a 5% increase in impact velocity at close range. however, the increase in depth of penetration appears to be substantially greater than 5%. I have dug many bullets from elephants fired at 2035fps and at 2135fps MV, and the difference in penetration is substantial. I would estimate that penetration is increased roughly 9" or so


JPK

So by your calculation you should be able to hand throw a 500 gr bullet and have it penetrate 9" into an elephant ?

quote:

I have nt read all of Michael's posts on the topic of strain by different bullets, and don't know where or how he is measuring strain, but, as you know, I believe the NF's are the least harmful of the bunch. And unless Michael substantially changed the design of his bulllets, eleiminating the long bearing surface toward the base and instead installing grooves with sufficient room to accomodate material displace by the rifling from from the bearing surfaces, I won't shoot them, or any similar bullet.

Woodleigh softs are "sticky" bullets, and the evidence is the requirement to use loads for them that are identical or very close to those required for Woodleigh solids. Woodleigh solids are tough on a barrel, and that has been known for decades. But they have relief at the base, unlike many/most brass bullets.

I suppose that if a brass bullet has a sufficient number of and the proper spacing between grooves, and was custom made for the bore of the rifle, it would be almost as easy on the barrel as a NF, but I haven't seen one yet (but then, haven't looked lately.)JPK

You definitely need to read Michael's Terminal Bullet Performance thread; it's a sticky here in the Big Bores. Things have changed since the thread was started November 3, 2009. New bullets designed that are now being commercially produced by Cutting Edge Bullets (CEB). And NF is converting their banded CPS and FPS bullets into a new generation bullet nose shape.

And Michael has posted numerous photographs, as well as describing the pressure testing equipment used, and where the strain gauge connections are attached on the barrel.

It's a long thread but good stuff contained therein.

quote:

Aren't the mysterious misses on elephant brain shooting due mostly to RN FMJ bullets fishtailing and veering off course?

Concerning solids, once terminal penetration begins, all solids become "Front End Drive"..... Front end does the steering. Any round nose fmj or solid is inherently unstable. We all know the 8 factors of solid penetration, and how they relate to stability, simply put, one must have a 65% meplat of caliber to sustain stable behavior. Factor #1...... For some reason, one which I do not understand, the continued users of these bullets always always claim they "Missed the Brain".... Elephant escapes and is not recovered. For years I have stated that a good many, maybe not most, maybe so most, that there is the very very strong possibility that the unstable round nose took a turn and is in fact the root cause of that issue. Who knows? Elephant escapes! I know a lot of folks that have come to me and told me the old RN took a 90 degree turn in that old elephant head. One took a frontal, come out the side!!!!!! Elephants lost, Misses? Some. RN Bullets going whacky? I bet on it!

As far as velocity increasing stability of a round nose solid, hit and miss, it's unstable, it can turn just as quickly at higher velocity as low. And impossible to say when it will go unstable. Twist rate is more of a factor, and can increase the stability slightly with a round nose, but still is no guarantee as to how far, and no consistency to that. The only possible way to guarantee straight line penetration and depth of penetration of any solid is by meplat size and nose profile followed by the other 6 factors...... End of Story.....

Speaking of Nose Profile, John and Franz of North Fork changed the nose profile of the North Fork FPS a couple of years ago. This was an extreme improvement of depth of penetration, and stability at the end of penetration over the older nose profile. From test work done here I was getting at least 20% increased depth of penetration, and 100% straight line performance. By Johns calculations and tests, he was getting overall average of 25% increase in depth of penetration, and again 100% straight line performance. As we know, John and I were working at the same time with the design of the nose profiles of the New North Forks and the BBW#13 Solids, independently. John and Franz kept the 68% meplat size that John and I developed for my .500 caliber North Fork Solids, and then later the .474 caliber North Forks designed for my 475 B&Ms. In a recent conversation with Kevin Robertson, they have a couple of 450 Ackleys on hand, and using a 600 gr North Fork FPS for those rifles. I forget the velocity, however they are capable of shooting an elephant in the ass and coming out the nose with it, 100% straight line penetration according to Kevin. Kevin and I also had a talk about other other aspects of terminal performance with solids, and were in agreement.

Now lets see, some folks believe that #s are so important..... I shot a moose one time, but that don't make me a moose expert! Adding up elephants... I think I have shot 9 elephants, added to Ulriks 11, and Todd's 5 gives us 25, add Sam's 5 or so, not real sure, now that is 30. I have ONE individual that has a 500 MDM and has shot over 25-30+ elephants with it alone in the last two years. All with 500 gr BBW#13 Solid, all successful, heads, body, whatever. Over the last two years at a very minimum I have had at least 25 folks contact me, and post here as well, about their success on elephant with various BBW#13 Solids. Many of these have shot through elephant from head to ass. Our own Brent Ebling, 500 MDM and the 500 gr BBW#13 stopped a charge last season with his rifle, first shot putting elephant in the dirt, that bullet traveling from head to ass, frontal, then followups from side head shots kicking dust up the other side, and from body shot kicking dust out the other side. I calculate that we have reached and surpassed rather easily the so called needed experience test............. With zero issues or failures with either North Fork or the BBW#13s.......... Currently there are many African and Australian PHs in the field with both North Fork and Cutting Edge BBW#13 Solids, to a man each of them have never seen performance like they are now getting, not only in depth of penetration, straight line penetration, but hitting animals hard up front, and making a difference. Curious, not a single one of these Professional Hunters have decided to go back to their old round nose solids, and in fact go out of their way to get the bullets in their loads???? I wonder why that is???

Speaking of the mighty 450 gr BBW#13, I have one chap, 450NE, that put a 450#13 Solid through both shoulders/legs of a good sized bull with his 458 B&M, 18 inch gun, bullet started life at just a tad over 2200 fps. This bullet completely broke both legs dropping the elephant where it stood. In the photos both legs are splayed out at odd, impossible angles clearly showing this. Elephant was dead right there before they even got to it. Bullet kept on going, exited. I don't want to hear much about bone busting ability and how a FN does not do that, and not only that, but just not going to listen to it, nor pay it much attention. The next elephant he shot was with his 500 Nitro, and the new 510 gr BBW#13 Solid. I don't have the particulars on this one, but it was also successful, and the bullet exited as well. I shot a big bull through the heart this past July with one of my 458 B&Ms, 18 inch gun, 450#13 Solid at or around 2210-2220 fps, bullet took it through the heart, complete penetration, exited, bull went 30-40 yards and was down for the count, end of story.

A couple of years ago I also shot a elephant while laying on the ground shooting up into the heart at three steps. 500 MDM, 500 gr #13 Solid at 2400 fps. Elephant turned and fell over just in front of me. After recovering the heart it clearly showed just how hard this bullet hit it. There were radial tears going away from the bullet hole itself, which was substantial to say the least. The bullet busted the hell out of it, and I am convinced that this action saved my bacon that day. Now whether I am correct or not on that point, I really will never know for certain. But I have seen many a tiny little hole made by many a round nose solid, and it is way less than impressive, and in every case in all heart shot elephants I have seen, these big meplat solids absolutely bust the heart of an elephant, and are extremely impressive. Great shock and trauma is without doubt transferred to target, far and above a round nose anything........ This same radial tears, and far more permanent wound channel was also observed in the heart of my elephant this past July with that 450#13 Solid this past July from the 458 B&M at tad over 2200 fps.

quote:

AA2230 is better for the 458wm that H335 and is temperature insensative as well.

This is not correct. Please read this from Accurate Powders, which I posted in a previous post with links to it...........

quote:

Ramshot and Accurate Powders

Most of our powders are not insensitive, and will show some effect at hot and cold temperatures.
However, we test at -40F and +125F and the deviation in most cases are ca 3% to 5% at these extreme levels. Therefore most shooters do not notice much difference under normal practical hunting conditions.

More elaboration on the subject:
Complete temperature stability can only be achieved with tubular extruded powders designs , either with double base (NG) and/or with other coating technologies.
Because the ballistic performance at extreme temperature is completely dependant on the specific combination, it is very difficult to quantify and qualify.
Our standard powders perform very well at extreme temperatures, and usually pass the strict military requirements by a large margin.
This is a subject that often fraught with misconceptions and inaccuracies.
The term is used loosely by manufacturers without qualifying the subject, and is obviously exploited for marketing purposes and perceptions.
The facts are:
• Although powders can be improved, it’s really only possible with advanced coating procedures and additives which increase the cost.
• A particular powder can be improved re temperature stability for certain combinations, within a certain envelope which is specific to the following three main parameters/aspects
◦ The caliber.
◦ The weight of the projectile/bullet.
◦ The performance level.
If any of these parameters/aspects go beyond or outside the intended ratio/s, the results will change and the performance will sometimes be different.
It is also very important that when a comparison is made, that all conditions re weapon i.e. components primer, case, bullet and the velocity are equal, and preferably done at the same time on the same day.

http://www.ramshot.com/faq/

http://www.accuratepowder.com/faq/

AA 2230 is not a Tubular extruded powder, nor is H335.......

Regardless of this, AA2230 is a good powder in 458 Winchester, but there are also other good choices as well. If temperature stability is ones main goal, the IMR 8208 would do this, and it is just as good as AA 2230 in 458 Winchester. I have hunted in 115 degree Zimbabwe, and with powders that WERE NOT Temp Stable, I never had any issues at all, so I think many times, too much importance is placed TODAY on this factor. Maybe 20 years ago it was more important with those powders available and 20+ year old Powder Tech. Today, I don't think its that big of an issue.

Repeat..........

quote:

Ramshot and Accurate Powders

Most of our powders are not insensitive, and will show some effect at hot and cold temperatures.
However, we test at -40F and +125F and the deviation in most cases are ca 3% to 5% at these extreme levels. Therefore most shooters do not notice much difference under normal practical hunting conditions.

As for barrel strains, this has been tested extensively in 3 calibers, the first .474 on a 470 Nitro Double, next was .458 caliber in a 458 B&M, bullet does not understand what sort of barrel it is going down, nor care, and the last barrel strains were done in .510 caliber, a 500 Nitro double of Sam's. This work is conclusive to most, and North Fork and the Cutting Edge BBW#13 run neck and neck, in every caliber, every cartridge right down the line as to putting LESS STRAIN on a barrel than all other bullets. There are two major ways to reduce barrel strain, bearing surface, and diameter......... I recall one occasion where a Barnes banded FN solid gave extremely low barrel strains. After measuring this lot of bullets it was from .002-.0025 undersized, which easily explained that. Woodleigh routinely undersizes by .001 to .0015 in an attempt to reduce barrel strain, however that bearing surface kills them in that area. Its actually very simple, very logical thought process when actually considered.......

Jim, the barrel strain work is on the several threads down in the double rifle section, one major thread is the "Double Rifle Bullet of the Future", which most "Traditionalists" disregard anyway....... I think more is on the 500 Nitro data thread too.... But I would not concern myself with anyone on this particular thread anyway.........

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:


Just to add a little reality to this topic ---
Most little league baseball players can throw a 500 gr bullet 100fps !! Does anyone really think that much addition velocity amounts to a substantial increase in penetration or killing power ?

100fps doesn't seem like much of an improvement, but it is about a 5% increase in impact velocity at close range. however, the increase in depth of penetration appears to be substantially greater than 5%. I have dug many bullets from elephants fired at 2035fps and at 2135fps MV, and the difference in penetration is substantial. I would estimate that penetration is increased roughly 9" or so


JPK

So by your calculation you should be able to hand throw a 500 gr bullet and have it penetrate 9" into an elephant ?

Come on now, don't be a jerk and/or use your common sense. A 500gr bullet @ 100fps won't penetrate thin skin let alone elephant skin, and you know that was not what I was writing to boot.

But after intitial penetration, which will drop the velocity of either the 2040fps MV bullet or the 2135fps MV bullet, the difference in velocity results in an increase in penetration of about 25%, which is roughly 9"

FWIW, the difference in penetration with a NF FN is immaterial with 100fps of velocity change.

JPK

458Win,

I have also noticed the increased penetration on elephants that an added 100 fps gives to 500 grain bullets in the 458 Win and when using the 550 grain bullet in the 458 Lott. I don't know exactly how much increased penetration the added 100 fps amounts to but it is definitely there. It is vitally important for the 458 Win because it is very marginal when you get much below 2,100 fps. I rate this 100 fps as the most important 100 fps in ballistics. For most calibers that you would use in Alaska when using soft point bullets it is indeed of minor importance.

As an aside it has amazed me how much an added 50 grains in bullet weight (500 vs 550 grain) will increase both penetration and thumping power in the 458 Lott. Much more important than adding 100 or 150 fps.

465H&H

Michael,

I don't have your computer skills and I'm handicapped by being on my i pad sitting in a ski lodge, so I'll respond to your post in pieces, which might make flow choppy and inconsistent, sorry for the inconvenience.

I know AA2230 is temperature insensative because I personally testd it. AA2230 is temperature insensative in the 458wm to the extent that any velocty change was concealed within round to round variabilty at ambient temps of ~40*F and at ~100*F, and the mean measured velocity, ~10' from muzzle, of rounds fired at boh temperatures was within a few fps. Testing included allowing rounds to come to ambient temperature at 40*F and 100*F and much hotter than 100*F in that ambient temp, by setting the rounds in the sun and in the chambers and allowing them to heat to the point that touching them was very uncomfortable. We didn't have the pyrometer required to take the ammo or chamber temps, but again, you couldn't hold the ammo or rifle.

H335 was developed as a military powder for the 5.56 NATO and so meets the strict military specs regarding temperature sensativity. Here is a link: http://www.hodgdon.com/rifle.html

Despite the commonly held misbelieve that .458" Woodleigh steel jacketed RN solids veer in elephants I have never had one veer. Nor has 465H&H or any of the few other I have corresponded with or spoken with who have dug them from elephants.

[This trait of straight line penetration in elephants for RN solids hold through since the advent of the 450NE. You will be hard pressed to find any suggestion of RN solids having hemisherical shape verring in elephants in history, but you can find plenty for those fewer in number cartridges which while having bullets labeled "RN" solid had bullets without true hemisherical shape, such as the 470NE for example. Unfortuately, those bullets with a greater tendency to veer in elephants were labeled "RN Solids" and the tendency to veer in elephants was attributed falsely to even true hemisherical RN solids.]

In addition, while I have found that in most if not all instances the RN solids turn "head over heels" to travel base first in elephants, I have found this to occur only after substantial and adequate straight line penetration. The turning of the bullet all but ends penetration, with penetration ending just ~6" to 9" from the earliest evidence of turning. Penetration continued straight line for those ~6" or so as far as I could tell in the field. The tendency to turn after substantial and adequate penetration is no failure, moreover, I have found this charecteristic to be beneficial in some circumstances.

Penetration is not the end all be all for bullet performance for elephant hunting. It is a critically important element, but there are others. The ability to penetrate bone for example. Or to transmit energy within a specific time frame.

There is no doubt in my mind that FN solids of approriate weight penetrate substantially deeper than RN solids, and it you were to search AR you will find that I was among the very earliest advocates, probably third in time behind Gerrard, who was the first advocate.

However, through using them on elephants I observed some drawbacks. One draw back is actually the result of their greatest attribute, penetration. That draw back is the lesser ability to transmit energy to an elephants head on a failed brain shot. I surmise that the penetration of the FN is the culpit here, since in most instances the bullet will exit the skull and expend it's potental energy via penetration through muscle or even in air if it exits the elephant completely.

By comparison, the .458" RN Woodleigh rarely exits an elephant's head, and thus expends all of it's energy within the elephant's head, resulting in considerably greater obsreved effect on the elephant. Call it knock down or knock out or shock effect, call it what you wish, the observed effect is there.

In a perfect world, all brain shots would be perfect and the elephant would drop dead in his tracks, but then, we would have no use for a 458wm or any other big bore, we would all be killing our elephants with 220gr Woodleighs out of 30-06's, or using 308's or 275 Rigbys, eh.

The reason I carry a 458wm is that a cartridge in that catagory has a history supporting the proposition that when the chips are down even a less than perfect brain shot has the capability to reasonably reliably stop an elephant intent on killing you, or one of your party. I have used the 458wm's capacity to stop an elephant charge at close range twice, so the proposition has merit.

As noted earlier, I have observed that using a FN solid reduces the observable effect of a close range missed frontal brain shot on elephants compared to a RN solid.

Recall as well that I hve encounterd two instances when a FN solid failed to perform adequately in bone, once glancing off hard plate bone beloe the Zygomitic arch and once deforming substantially, veering well off course and penetrating inadequately off in bone to the side and below the eye socket.

Given the FN's reduced observable effect of a missed close range brain shot and the two instnces of FN solids failing to perform adequately in bone - a situation never encountered with a RN Woodleigh, I choose to conserve my 458wm's elephant stopping ability through the use of a Woodleigh for the firt shot and to load a NF FN for the second shot, taking advantage of both bullets' most favorable attributes.

As far as a PH using a FN bullet, well, if I were a PH I believe I would too! Almost every shot the PH will take on an elephant, or any other game for that matter, will be a follow on shot at an animal the client hunter has failed to shoot adequately. Those follow on shots are likely to be at anything but optimal angles, and the greater penetration of the FN solid is of premium importance in those circumstances.

Moreover, I would hope that an elephant PH is a more reliable shot on a frontal brain shot that I am! Even the busiest, long serving PH's will need to stop few elephants through their careers. For example, on the African Hunting forum yesterday Ivan Carter postulated that he and Buzz Charlton were the two PH's that had had the most mock or real charges of all current PH's. Ivan has killed five cows and one bull in defense, the one bull while guiding a camera safari in Mana Pools, iirc, the five cows while elephant huntin.

JPK

As another aside: I'm quite certain that Alf knows physics and how all this stuff "works". But I wish he'd write for the layman, put in some periods and use a spell check! His spelling reminds me of some sixth-graders! Sorry Alf...

Also, I'm thinking that the physics/theories of wounding and the knowledge and experience gained through testing and field work need to somehow be brought together in a logical/practical way without shooting one another down.

I know Michael is pissed, and in some ways I don't blame him. But Michael, I think you need to have some (more) patience with slow learners... perhaps myself included, because there are those:

a) Who sincerely want to understand what is going on, and why.

b) Some "stick" with what has "worked" for them in the past for reasons only known to them. Perhaps they will only be hunting eles once in their lifetime, or feel they can't afford the best of everything. Who knows all the reasons? Some people are not reflective by nature, and rarely know why they are motivated to do things in a certain way, or unmotivated to do certain things.

c) From reading these threads, I certainly don't agree with everything that is given as explanations, nor disagree with everything either! I'm learning, and that's a process.

d) There is a place for FP softs and solids. I've used them with good results, but NOT for any long-range shooting because of very poor ballistic coefficients. Yes, I realize for elephant and perhaps Cape buff at relative short range, they would be best. But for anything beyond 200 yards, I'll choose a spitzer or spire point every time.

e) Then, in the grand scheme of things, how many elephant hunters are there? And, how many of those will actually shoot more than one or two?

Here in Ontario, we have over 100,000 moose hunters! Most of them know what works for them. No more than 20% of those are handloaders, and most will use what has worked in the past. Some like to experiment... will try the latest. My guess is about 1 in 5 of that 20%.

It kind of puts things in perspective. Bottom line here is cost... it has to be competitive.

Just some honest reflections.

Bob

www.bigbores.ca

quote:

I know Michael is pissed, and in some ways I don't blame him. But Michael, I think you need to have some (more) patience with slow learners... perhaps myself included, because there are those:

Bob....... I always have time for you and anyone that actually wishes to learn, and if I can help always happy to do so. Many of these things we learn together. And I am not pissed at all....... Those that wish to go their own way, is fine with me. I do not intend to waste time on that. This ground has been covered way too much, way too long and its the same ground......

100'000 moose hunters! Damn, that's a lot... Must be a lot of moose as well! I wonder what one of those 250 Socoms in any 458 would do to a moose? I think I got a pretty good idea.........

Michael

Doc M,
Your latest lengthy post on this thread is pertinent and authoritative throughout, unlike some other posts containing irrelevant tangents and anecdotes.
You amaze with brilliance instead of baffle with BS.
It is great that you take the time to practice such clarity here, with excellent typing speed and accuracy,
otherwise you would not have time for the rest of your accomplishments. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Doc M,
Your latest lengthy post on this thread is pertinent and authoritative throughout, unlike some other posts containing irrelevant tangents and anecdotes.
You amaze with brilliance instead of baffle with BS.
It is great that you take the time to practice such clarity here, with excellent typing speed and accuracy,
otherwise you would not have time for the rest of your accomplishments. Thanks.

Michael accumulates experience faster than most because where we shoot animals once or twice he turns them into colanders-hence has more data per animal.

I have a 32 page medical report(1898) for use of expanding ammunition from Field surgeons stationed in India. All in all was that the MK3(.303) splitnosed bullet didn´t have the desired effect. Most combattens that were hit in arms, legs, thigs, hips,belly, botux did recover in less than 14 days and were able to regroup. Had the same place of impact on body been hit with their old .577/450 most combattens would have died of bloodlost or chock and wounds would have been much more complicated to operate due to the smashing power of the .450cal leadbullet.
One surgeon states he had vitnessed people die when had their arm shot of, of the MH 577/450. The bullet laserated tissues beyound any repair.
Can we adapt this knowledge from impacts on humans to our modern world on biggame?. Slow heavy big calibered bullet vs fast lightweight small caliber?. It´s an interesting debate that has been ongoing for years since Samuel Baker.

jens,

What you're more likely to get with this group is fast big bores using bullets designed to do massive destruction compared to 1898...

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Doc M,
Your latest lengthy post on this thread is pertinent and authoritative throughout, unlike some other posts containing irrelevant tangents and anecdotes.
You amaze with brilliance instead of baffle with BS.
It is great that you take the time to practice such clarity here, with excellent typing speed and accuracy,
otherwise you would not have time for the rest of your accomplishments. Thanks.

quote:

1. FN bullets are stable, RN bullets and other pointy bullets are unstable
Fact or fiction ? Or the FN bullet is steered by it's nose ?

Fact...... In tests conducted in "aqueous" materials, test mediums in the beginning, later in animal tissue, all is aqueous. Tests conducted with Round Nose, 50% Meplat, 55% Meplat, 60% Meplat, 65% Meplat, 70% Meplat, 75% Meplat, and 80% Meplat.

Short story, 65%-70% meplat of caliber is optimum for straight line penetration and stability. As meplat size increases to 75% and 80% terminal penetration remains stable, however you start to see a reduction in total overall penetration because of larger meplat size. 60% meplat for caliber is starting to become stable in a 1:12 twist barrel, it's not quite there, but it is trying. 50%, 55% meplat of caliber is not terminally stable, and a round nose solid cannot stabilize itself in this test medium.

In every test conducted over many years, and many bullets this holds true, not only tests that I have personally conducted, in front of MANY WITNESSES over the years, but tests done by others in the actual design of the bullets we now use today, and have proven themselves in the field many times...........

quote:

If FN's were stable why then fuss with rate of spin, one could simply shoot them out of a smoothbore !

Speaking of which, I have basically done just that! I own two 470 Capsticks that have .477 caliber barrels... Not .474 caliber. Shooting a Barnes Banded Solid FN, 65% Meplat, this bullet was stable for 90% of its total penetration, dead straight, for 90% of its total penetration! Spin had shit to do with it, as it HAD NOW SPIN, NO ENGVRAVING, bearing surface smooth as a babies ass, yet it drove dead straight for 90% of its "TERMINAL PENETRATION" before loosing stability at the end, from not being totally stable yes. What sustained that straight line penetration for that 90% of terminal penetration?? In other tests, no other bullet with less than 65% meplat could remain stable for any amount of reasonable penetration........ In particular, the RN would not stay stable for any part of penetration.......

I suppose VooDoo Magic then.........

We find here that Twist Rates are indeed an important factor of "Terminal Penetration" of solids. When you have a less than optimum meplat size, 60% or less, then a faster twist rate does increase the amount of "Straight Line" penetration. Twist Rate CANNOT however completely overcome a less than optimum meplat size, nor can velocity. At some point during penetration, the bullet will loose stability regardless.

quote:

2. FN bullets out- penetrate RN or pointy bullets because of the FN nose shape

Fact or fallacy ?

Looking at nose shape as a factor only:

So we take our FN 500 gr solid and we squeeze it down to say a .10 caliber sharp needle, still 500 gr but a long slender shape needle, load that into a sabot stick it in the same 458 win case and fire it ?

Will our 500gr FN still out- penetrate the 500 gr sharp pointed needle..... Nope it won't, in terms of penetration that needle will likely penetrate 10 elephants and that needle will remain stable...... so here clearly nose shape was not the deciding factor..... the question then what is the factor?

In fact in terms of penetration the most effective penetrators are long needle shaped projectiles.

To answer this we would need to take a closer look at Drag and what it means for the bullet and bullet shape.

In its basic form this statement is actually correct to a point. However, it is totally irrelevant to us as Shooters/Hunters. And, in addition, it is NOT THE .10 Caliber NEEDLE.... All actual sub caliber SuperCavitation Projectiles require a "Flat Nose" to be the most effective in developing SuperCavitation.

Totally irrelevant to us as hunters/shooters, of actual firearms used in the field. I suppose we could carry a ARROW QUIVER (I think that is what they call the things stick shooters carry arrows in?) on our backs to carry our 500 gr FLAT NOSE Darts, but damned if I can figure exactly how I am going to have a magazine full of these?????

quote:

3. Only FN bullets cause cavitation and therefore they are stable, RN's are unstable and do not cause cavitation.


Wrong on both counts.

All bullets cause cavitation ! As long as the right flow regime for cavitation is upheld around the bullet.

Cavitation is not a function of shape of the projectile

Supercavitation is the use of cavitation effects to create a bubble of gas inside a liquid large enough to encompass an object travelling through the liquid, greatly reducing the skin friction drag on the object and enabling achievement of very high speeds. Current applications are mainly limited to projectiles or very fast torpedoes, and some propellers, but in principle the technique could be extended to include entire vehicles.

A supercavitating object is a high speed submerged object that is designed to initiate a cavitation bubble at the nose which (either naturally or augmented with internally-generated gas) extends past the aft end of the object, substantially reducing the skin friction drag that would be present if the sides of the object were in contact with the liquid in which the object is submerged. A key feature of the supercavitating object is the nose, which may be shaped as a flat disk or cone, and may be articulated, but which likely has a sharp edge around the perimeter behind which the cavitation bubble forms.[2] The shape of the object aft of the nose will generally be slender in order to stay within the limited diameter of the cavitation bubble. If the bubble is of insufficient length to encompass the object, especially at slower speeds, the bubble can be enlarged and extended by injection of high pressure gas near the object's nose.[2] (Ashley, Steven (May 2001). "Warp Drive Underwater". Scientific American: 70–79.)

SuperCavitating Projectiles.
When a projectile moves through the water at sufficient speed, the flow is accelerated in localized regains about the nose, reducing the static pressure below that of the vapor pressure, creating a vapor cavity. Normally these cavities collapse immediately after passage of the projectile. However, with sufficient speed and proper design features, such as a FLAT NOSE TIP, a cavity can be reared that will envelope the entire body and persist long after passage of the projectile. This phenomenon, called supercavitation, results ini a projectile that has only a wetted nose, creating a low drag environment for underwater flight. (JD Hrubes Naval Undersea Warfare Center, this research supported by the Defense Advanced Research Agency, Office of Naval Research)

Yes, of course I know the rebuttal, "SuperCavitation can only happen in Water".... I don't concur with that, I believe it does in fact occur in any AQUEOUS MEDIUM, which does include animal tissue. No, animal tissue is NOT SOLID. In the sense a SOLID is WOOD, STEEL, materials that have near zero aqueous makeup, animals are aqueous, animal tissue is not solid, parts of animal body might be considered solid, bone for example, but for a bullet to pass through a body, it is NOT SOLID material, it is aqueous, it has voids, it is uneven material throughout and the Flat Nose designs absolutely keep the bullet stable during this part of its terminal penetration........

And of course the standard rebuttal is to attack the test medium I have used, or methods or what have you. Fine, do so. Have at it. Again, what I have done here, translates for me and all others I get reports from to field operations. What happens here, happens in the field as well......... And this is where your F**K**G RUBBER HITS THE ROAD, and where it counts, with real bullets, real rifles, real people shooting real animals. Anything else is actually moot.............. Anything else beyond practical is nothing but an attempt to MUDDY the water for ones own entertainment purposes, which of course I have been duped into a reply, which is a total waste of time and energy on something so frivolous as to be ridiculous......

Michael

Again, duped into a complete waste of time with any response, but feel one last obligation to do so.

Once again for those able to understand............. Direct From Accurate Powder and Ramshot Powder

quote:

Ramshot and Accurate Powders

Most of our powders are not insensitive, and will show some effect at hot and cold temperatures.
However, we test at -40F and +125F and the deviation in most cases are ca 3% to 5% at these extreme levels. Therefore most shooters do not notice much difference under normal practical hunting conditions.

More elaboration on the subject:
Complete temperature stability can only be achieved with tubular extruded powders designs , either with double base (NG) and/or with other coating technologies.

AA 2230 is not a Tubular extruded powder , nor is H335.......

quote:

I know AA2230 is temperature insensative because I personally testd it. AA2230 is temperature insensative in the 458wm to the extent that any velocty change was concealed within round to round variabilty at ambient temps of ~40*F and at ~100*F, and the mean measured velocity, ~10' from muzzle, of rounds fired at boh temperatures was within a few fps. Testing included allowing rounds to come to ambient temperature at 40*F and 100*F and much hotter than 100*F in that ambient temp, by setting the rounds in the sun and in the chambers and allowing them to heat to the point that touching them was very uncomfortable. We didn't have the pyrometer required to take the ammo or chamber temps, but again, you couldn't hold the ammo or rifle.

H335 was developed as a military powder for the 5.56 NATO and so meets the strict military specs regarding temperature sensativity. Here is a link: http://www.hodgdon.com/rifle.html

Unlike yourself, I do NOT DISPUTE your claims about AA 2230 not being an issue with temperature, I believe your test, and believe it to be correct. I have conducted like tests here with other powders and found so little difference that it is totally irrelevant to our needs and requirements. I concur. I have also went in the other direction, put loaded rounds in the FREEZER to test for cold weather operations, of which I have been on a few of those excursions as well, in particular to the arctic, I wanted to see what effect extreme cold and freezing had on loaded ammo that I was taking at the time. Of no real import is what I found as well.

H335 is a ball type powder, no where anywhere does it say its Temp Stable..... Your link does not provide that....
From your link;

quote:

Hodgdon spherical powders are great all-round propellants for a variety of rifles. You'll not only enjoy consistently high performance, you'll also appreciate the consistent charge weights that Hodgon spherical powders give you.

H335®
H335™
Originated as a military powder, used for the 5.56 NATO, or 223 Remington as handloaders know it. Obviously, it sees endless use in the 222 Remington, 223 Remington and other small cartridges. In particular, prairie dog shooters will find this a favorite, as J.B. Hodgdon has for years! Available in 1 lb. & 8 lb. containers.

I am no expert on Temp Insensitive powders, I can only rely upon what the powder companies tell us, Accurate and Ramshot state that Complete temperature stability can only be achieved with tubular extruded powders designs Neither of which AA 2230 or H335 is, both being as Hodgdon states, a Spherical Powder, or commonly referred to as a "Ball Powder".....

All of Hodgdons "Extreme Powders" are extruded tubular powders, and are "extremely insensitive to hot/cold temperatures" according to Hodgdon. H335 is spherical and not included under the Extreme Powder group.

Again, I believe you, and I concur that more than likely with either it is a totally moot point. With todays powder tech and coatings, I don't think that temperature is a major factor and relevant to the conditions that most of us will encounter. I think you do not need to be stupid, and lay your hunting rounds out to cook under a 110 degree Zimbabwe sun. But normal use in the magazine, cartridge slides, pocket, ammo box that is in a bag or what have you, then I think it is of little import. I would protect my ammo regardless of any conditions, regardless of any powder used.

Michael

I want Shooters and Hunters to Think about Something, but first, I am going to post a little bit of "Bullet History" for you to consider...........

quote:

John Nosler

In the fall of 1946, a stubborn, mud-caked Canadian moose failed to go down, despite a well placed shot from John Nosler’s 300 H&H. On the way home from that trip, John started thinking about a way to make a bullet that would perform well every time, no matter what the size of the game or the shot angle.

Over the next year, he experimented with bullet design, finally settling on a unique, dual core bullet that was really the first Partition®. The following fall, John and his friend, Clarence Purdie, both killed moose with one shot using John’s new bullet. In 1948 the Nosler Partition Bullet Company was formed.

quote:

Joyce Hornady

"Ten bullets through one hole" was the philosophy of Joyce Hornady, the company's founder. This great idea of accuracy and perfection has continued from the first bullet made more than sixty years ago, right through today.

Like so many successful companies, Hornady Manufacturing was born out of one man's vision of a better product for his own use. Joyce Hornady was an avid shooter and needed a steady supply of good, accurate bullets. While commercially available bullets were usable, Joyce felt that better bullets could be made.

Hornady, the son of a pastor, was named for a prominent Methodist bishop, Bishop Joyce, who oversaw church affairs in Colorado and western Nebraska. Joyce grew up learning to shoot and hunt – a lifelong passion that would forever change the shooting industry.

During World War II, Joyce had taken a job as a marksmanship instructor in a guard training unit at the Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant. He and his family moved to Grand Island from Lincoln, Nebraska. Following the War, Joyce and his family stayed in Grand Island, and opened a small sporting goods retail store that sold everything from basketballs to hunting and shooting products. There was no doubt however, that his true love was shooting and hunting.

In the first years following the war, shooters and hunters used some of the vast surplus of military ammunition for their sport shooting. This surplus ammunition however, did not offer the accuracy or performance needed for target shooting, big game or varmint hunting. Joyce realized the need for better bullets and he responded to it.

quote:

Jack Carter

On his first African safari, Texan Jack Carter fired seven 300-grain bullets from his .375 H&H Magnum into a Cape buffalo bull, seemingly with very little effect. Only after receiving another half-dozen bullets from a .458 Winchester Magnum did the great beast call it quits. Moments later a somewhat shaken Carter decided the hunting world needed a better bullet for use on large and tenacious game, and in 1988 he headed back to Africa with one of his own design. Called the Bear Claw, its copper jacket combined a long, solid shank at the rear with a lead-filled cavity up front.

quote:

Randy Brooks Barnes Bullets

Barnes is the oldest bullet component manufacturer in the United States. Back in the early 1970′s, Coni and I were living in Grand Junction, Colorado milking cows full-time at a dairy while running a little gun trading business on the side. While there, I got to know Fred Barnes who was the originator of Barnes Bullets and had since sold the company. I hung around him a little bit and got to know more about the bullet business. Coni and I moved to New Mexico where I built saddles and got into team roping quite a bit. We eventually moved back to Colorado and found that the Barnes Bullet Company was for sale. In 1974, Coni and I bought the company which was then located in Montrose, Colorado and relocated it to American Fork, Utah.

I got a two week crash course from the people we bought the company from. I really felt that I had this thing dumped in my lap and boy, it was a mess. At the time, Barnes made pretty good bullets. They were heavily jacketed and were well known for their penetrating value. I did, however, see that there were many improvements that needed to be made. I immediately designed a solid that would not bend or come apart. In 1979, I came up with a solid bullet that didn’t have any lead in it. In 1984, I started thinking of an expanding bullet that didn’t contain any lead, and that is how I came up with our X-bullet. In 1986, I came up with the prototype which is well-patented. The X-bullet we make today far exceeds the performance level of the bullet we made in the 80′s.

quote:

Vernon Speer

Vernon Speer(1901-1978) was a man driven by his inventive nature.

A native of Iowa, Vernon served in the US Navy during World War I, stimulating his interest in aviation. At age 21, he designed and built an aircraft engine. To prove its worth, he installed it in a biplane and took it aloft. Following the war, he worked as a tool foreman for the John Deere Company. When World War II broke out, he became chief ground instructor at a Lincoln, Nebraska flying school. It was during this time he became interested in bullet making. He was briefly in the bullet business with Joyce Hornady, founder of Hornady Bullets.

In 1944, Vernon looked for a new location, one that offered good transportation, mild weather and, of course, access to great hunting. He selected Lewiston, Idaho, on the Washington-Idaho border. He rented space in the basement of a small corner grocery store and built equipment to convert fired 22 rimfire cases into .224" bullet jackets. The war effort meant that gilding metal, the preferred material for bullet jackets, was all going into government ammo plants. Reprocessing rimfire cases was Vernon's clever solution to a knotty problem. That solution put him in the bullet business for good.

Do you guys see a trend here? These are some few of the guys that are literally bullet legends, these are the guys that brought bullet tech to the front lines, these are the guys that have become the largest bullet companies in the world today....... What COMMON TREND do we see with each of these guys?

Well, one thing I see right off, many of them got involved with developing a better bullet because of a particular NEED for a better bullet. One needed and desired more accuracy! Several saw a need for a better bullet that would hold together on larger animals, in the case of John Nosler a failed moose shot, in the case of Jack Carter it was a 375 HH and cape buffalo and so on. A Particular Need for something better for the mission at hand....................

The next thing that stands out to me is the fact that NONE of these innovators are "Lab Technicians" at "White Laboratory" or some sort of "Bullet Tech Laboratory", none of them had to use B+T*M to get to A.......... They did not have to resort to pure scientific requirements to get what they needed for the field or the range.
Hell, one of them milked cows for christ sakes! According to some people none of these men would meet the requirements, or have the knowledge to be able to give us the bullets that they in fact did give us, that we have used for some 60+ years............ These men did not adhere to pure scientific requirements to get what was needed in the field, where we as shooters, hunters, need these bullets, and others like them to accomplish our missions. Our mission is not to be worried about shooting a 3 foot long 500 grain DART because science tells us this is required. It is not practical, it is not needed, it is not required. It is irrelevant at best, as we cannot put such to practical use. So we as hunters/shooters, we have to have something that can be put to actual use in the field, in real rifles, with real ammunition.

Bullets are designed by hunters/shooters for a reason..................... Something to keep in mind............

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Again, duped into a complete waste of time with any response, but feel one last obligation to do so.

Once again for those able to understand............. Direct From Accurate Powder and Ramshot Powder

quote:

Ramshot and Accurate Powders

Most of our powders are not insensitive, and will show some effect at hot and cold temperatures.
However, we test at -40F and +125F and the deviation in most cases are ca 3% to 5% at these extreme levels. Therefore most shooters do not notice much difference under normal practical hunting conditions.

More elaboration on the subject:
Complete temperature stability can only be achieved with tubular extruded powders designs , either with double base (NG) and/or with other coating technologies.

AA 2230 is not a Tubular extruded powder , nor is H335.......

quote:

I know AA2230 is temperature insensative because I personally testd it. AA2230 is temperature insensative in the 458wm to the extent that any velocty change was concealed within round to round variabilty at ambient temps of ~40*F and at ~100*F, and the mean measured velocity, ~10' from muzzle, of rounds fired at boh temperatures was within a few fps. Testing included allowing rounds to come to ambient temperature at 40*F and 100*F and much hotter than 100*F in that ambient temp, by setting the rounds in the sun and in the chambers and allowing them to heat to the point that touching them was very uncomfortable. We didn't have the pyrometer required to take the ammo or chamber temps, but again, you couldn't hold the ammo or rifle.

H335 was developed as a military powder for the 5.56 NATO and so meets the strict military specs regarding temperature sensativity. Here is a link: http://www.hodgdon.com/rifle.html

Unlike yourself, I do NOT DISPUTE your claims about AA 2230 not being an issue with temperature, I believe your test, and believe it to be correct. I have conducted like tests here with other powders and found so little difference that it is totally irrelevant to our needs and requirements. I concur. I have also went in the other direction, put loaded rounds in the FREEZER to test for cold weather operations, of which I have been on a few of those excursions as well, in particular to the arctic, I wanted to see what effect extreme cold and freezing had on loaded ammo that I was taking at the time. Of no real import is what I found as well.

H335 is a ball type powder, no where anywhere does it say its Temp Stable..... Your link does not provide that....
From your link;

quote:

Hodgdon spherical powders are great all-round propellants for a variety of rifles. You'll not only enjoy consistently high performance, you'll also appreciate the consistent charge weights that Hodgon spherical powders give you.

H335®
H335™
Originated as a military powder, used for the 5.56 NATO, or 223 Remington as handloaders know it. Obviously, it sees endless use in the 222 Remington, 223 Remington and other small cartridges. In particular, prairie dog shooters will find this a favorite, as J.B. Hodgdon has for years! Available in 1 lb. & 8 lb. containers.

I am no expert on Temp Insensitive powders, I can only rely upon what the powder companies tell us, Accurate and Ramshot state that Complete temperature stability can only be achieved with tubular extruded powders designs Neither of which AA 2230 or H335 is, both being as Hodgdon states, a Spherical Powder, or commonly referred to as a "Ball Powder".....

All of Hodgdons "Extreme Powders" are extruded tubular powders, and are "extremely insensitive to hot/cold temperatures" according to Hodgdon. H335 is spherical and not included under the Extreme Powder group.

Again, I believe you, and I concur that more than likely with either it is a totally moot point. With todays powder tech and coatings, I don't think that temperature is a major factor and relevant to the conditions that most of us will encounter. I think you do not need to be stupid, and lay your hunting rounds out to cook under a 110 degree Zimbabwe sun. But normal use in the magazine, cartridge slides, pocket, ammo box that is in a bag or what have you, then I think it is of little import. I would protect my ammo regardless of any conditions, regardless of any powder used.

Michael

Why are you so wound up Michael? Because I have proven that AA2230 is temperature insensative? Or that I pointed out that H335 is temperature insensative by citing the same authority - the United States Army - that you earlier relied on to support your proposition that temperature sensativity is much ado about nothing? (With which based on testing and experience I do not believe, see for example IMR 3031.)

Let me help you by pointing out there are NO powders absolutely temperature insensative. It is a matter of degrees, no pun intended. Even Hogdon's Extreme powders, developed by ADI for the Australian military to be temperature insensative, are not absolutely temperature insensative. (Go back to the Hogdon cite, click on Extreme powders and view the data on velocity variation the result of temperature change. Nice little graph...)

Please do not imply that you are somehow breaking new ground or on the cutting edge of bullet design, or imply that you belong in the company of those past and present bullet makers. The ideas behind your bullets were nothing new, and I hope you know that.

BTW, maybe those bullet makers you cite who began 30-70 years ago couldn't rely on the science of how or why, but you woud be a fool to believe that they are not taking advantage it now, in 2014.

Lastly, I have to laugh at the change in your methodology. In the past you argued that ony your test results mattered, now you argue that the only thing that matters is what you previously labeled ancedotal!

I am sure that your bullets performed in elephants as you expected them too, Gerrard, NF Mike and those of us who had been shooting elephants with flat nose solids for a decade and more had already told you of the vastly improved penetration!

The question is, if you were really testing bullet performance: How many Woodleighs did you fire into elephants, and particularly heads, eh?

JPK

I just want to throw out a couple of "observations" on A-2230.

I have tried everything in the .458 WM except TAC, X-terminator, and IMR 8208.

It is my understanding from Western Powders that A-2230 and X-terminator are the same powder marketed under different names. From the data I have seen...TAC, while it may be a suitable alternative if you could not get A-2230...it does not appear superior or really even an equal...not interesting enough to try.

IMR 8208...however due to it being an "extreme" powder...does look interesting and will give it a whirl sometime.

My observations on A-2230 in the .458.

At 72 gr and my seating depth...it is not compressed (FWIW). I have shot that load mostly in the heat of the summer in TX...~100F ave. It is very consistent in velocity. Just for grins...I shot a set at ~32F and the velocity ave or spread did NOT change for me in my application.

While it is spherical...it is double-based which is a listed characteristic used to minimize temperature related variance.

Again...FWIW.

EDITED: I left out the NOT above earlier.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:


Just to add a little reality to this topic ---
Most little league baseball players can throw a 500 gr bullet 100fps !! Does anyone really think that much addition velocity amounts to a substantial increase in penetration or killing power ?

100fps doesn't seem like much of an improvement, but it is about a 5% increase in impact velocity at close range. however, the increase in depth of penetration appears to be substantially greater than 5%. I have dug many bullets from elephants fired at 2035fps and at 2135fps MV, and the difference in penetration is substantial. I would estimate that penetration is increased roughly 9" or so


JPK

So by your calculation you should be able to hand throw a 500 gr bullet and have it penetrate 9" into an elephant ?

Hi Phil
Now it is important to remember that energy increase exponentially with velocity .. ie a 500 grs bullet at 100 fps only have 11 foot-pounds of energy.
But the difference between a 500 grs bullet at 2000 and 2100 fps is 455 foot pounds.. So the 100 fps does mean something in that end..
Take care Phil… and regards to Rocky, Tia and Taj from Stine and me…

Ulrik

quote:

Originally posted by buffalo:

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:


Just to add a little reality to this topic ---
Most little league baseball players can throw a 500 gr bullet 100fps !! Does anyone really think that much addition velocity amounts to a substantial increase in penetration or killing power ?

100fps doesn't seem like much of an improvement, but it is about a 5% increase in impact velocity at close range. however, the increase in depth of penetration appears to be substantially greater than 5%. I have dug many bullets from elephants fired at 2035fps and at 2135fps MV, and the difference in penetration is substantial. I would estimate that penetration is increased roughly 9" or so


JPK

So by your calculation you should be able to hand throw a 500 gr bullet and have it penetrate 9" into an elephant ?

Hi Phil
Now it is important to remember that energy increase exponentially with velocity .. ie a 500 grs bullet at 100 fps only have 11 foot-pounds of energy.
But the difference between a 500 grs bullet at 2000 and 2100 fps is 455 foot pounds.. So the 100 fps does mean something in that end..
Take care Phil… and regards to Rocky, Tia and Taj from Stine and me…

Ulrik

Important to remember the velocity squared part of the equation.

Even more important to have observed first hand the difference, as 465H&H and I have.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
Even more important to have observed first hand the difference, as 465H&H and I have.

JPK

Seriously, are you suggesting that actual field experience is more important than ballistic theory, pressure gauges, spreadsheets and gelatin blocks? I have heard it all now on AR. Let's get back to something meaningful, serious discussion of physics theory . . . .

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
Even more important to have observed first hand the difference, as 465H&H and I have.

JPK

Seriously, are you suggesting that actual field experience is more important than ballistic theory, pressure gauges, spreadsheets and gelatin blocks? I have heard it all now on AR. Let's get back to something meaningful, serious discussion of physics theory . . . .

In medicine...one of the first things you are warned against is reading too much into personal experiences with small numbers of cases.

As many times the large multicenter multi-hundred case studies tend to give you a different picture than what small numbers do.

Even though there are people posting here who have shot a few ele...nobody here has shot the 100's it would take to truly bear out the truth.

I just realized I had made a typo in my above statement on A-2230.

In my experience and application it has been very consistent from cold to very hot.

Lane,

The targets number around 90 elephants, all noting pretty much the same performance characteristics regarding RN and FN. For most of us that includes multiple shots in the dead elephants to test bullets, so a sample size in the multiple hundreds. 500grs, Will, 465H&H, Gerrard, me. And then add maybe 100,000 re the hemisherical round nose. Harlan alone at 7-10k with 458wm round noses and not one failure according to Harlan himself. Ron Thomson another 5k with 458wm round noses and no failures.

Is the sampling adequate?

How about Michael's?

JPK