The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Big Bores 458 win mag without compressed loads?Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
One of Us |
And Bell shot more than that with a .275 Rigby and claimed it to be the best. Actually in scientific ranking...Bell's data would be of an order of much greater magnitude due to numbers and better consistency...one shooter...all same caliber...mostly similar bullets. Much the same could be said of Harry Manners and Wally Johnson and the .375 H&H. I am well aware one can kill an ele with round-nose bullets. No argument there at all. We are arguing semantics of the best bullet. Y'all's experience does not advance your argument in scientific terms. Still low numbers, inconsistent collection by multiple shooters, and no controls. Michael is trying to define something very hard to define and he has gathered great data...and he really has no interest in any bullet making whatsoever...he is doing it for the betterment of our knowledge. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J. Lane Easter, DVM A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991. | |||
|
| one of us |
Lane, I cited Harlan and Thomson who together accounted for 12,000 to 15,000 elephants for a reason. ALL with the 458wm, ALL with Winchester 500gr steel jacketed hemisherical solids. Same cartridge, same load, same bullet, same velocity - no failures. Michael's so called "data" would predict thousands and thousands of failures in those 12,000 - 15,000 elephants. There were none. At the same time you dismiss the original real data on penetration of FN solids in elephants, developed largely by the five cited earlier, you cling to Michael's so called "data" which predicts outcomes not seen in the real world, not repeatable in the real world. For all of the supposed controls it is not data when it cannot support a prediction of actual results. You under rate the in the field Data collection, it at least represents actual results, which have proven repeatable and predictive of (at the time) future results (now a part of the data.) No matter how you try to dismiss it, roughly 500 round shot into real elephants has provided results both repeatable and predictive. No one is claiming that we can predict with 95% confidence and a standard deviation of 1.2 that a RN or FN solid will penetrate X" in an elephant, but after enough rounds you can say "FN solids of appropriate weight penetrate significantly more than RN solids of appropriate weight when fired at meax or near max pressure out of the same case, on order of tree times as far." Or in the cse of the 500gr steel jacketed solid at 2135fps vs 2035fps. After measuring three or four of each and discovering that those at one velocity all travel roughly the same distance in an elephant head on a frontal brain shot. The differences ranged some and the smaple was then very small (but grew!,) but the resukts were consistent and repeatable as well as predictive. The difference measured roughly 6-9", or 25% greater no matter how yoy slice it. Bell used a wide variety of cartridges including big bores and he didn't shoot 12,000 or 15,000 elephants. He did use steel jacketed RN solids, of English make because of the unreliability of German ammo. In fact he wrote that he selected the 275 Rigbys not because of its efficacy but because he could not tolerate more recoil after having shot his bore rifles earlier in life and because he could get English ammo. Recall that he also revered his 6.5x54MS. Neither Harry Manners nor Wally Johnson shot anywhere near the number of elephants that Harlan shot, even together they didn't approach Harlan, let alone Harln and Thomson. Also, as I wrote earlier, in the perfect paper (read "Internet" as well) world we would be killing our elephants with 30-06's, 308's, 275 Rigby's add nauseum. And they would all be standing in the open like when Bell hunted them, and to a lesser extent Manners and Johnson and Shelby. You can ascribe the motives you wish to Michael, but in reality he is largely wasting his time wrt flat nose solid and solids in general. A decade before him NF Mike and Gerrard had predicted and made progress proving the penetration advantage of FN solids in game, elephants in particular, and we went on to achieve real world results in line with their prediction and confirm them. He is later than a late comer to the party. Beyond wasting his time regarding long proven FN solids, he relentlessly attacks the efficacy of the hemisherical solid, which is just stupidity given its LONG and successful track record. His greatest sin is relentlessly repeating so called "data" which fails to predict real world results and in fact misses the mark so badly. His second greatest sin is his relentless effort to belittle those vastly more experienced individuals when they disagree on ANY topic. (Take for example his ridiculous behavior regarding AA2230 and H335!) Rather than take notice of, try to learn more about or to repeat real world results regularly achieved but unpredicted by his hypotheses he attacks the messenger as well as the message. He is a FIGJAM, JPK  Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
OK.  The only things I will add is that I have hunted the Karamoja and most of it is not open and some of it is worse than the worst jess in the Sapi. And Mike Brady is a good friend of mine as well and he likes to read the Terminal thread...never heard him really disagree with Michael. Good on you for already knowing all you need to know. I hope to get there too someday. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J. Lane Easter, DVM A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991. | |||
|
| one of us |
Lane, It is really unfortunate that that is your read of my post. Quite the opposite really, I am always on the lookout to learn new things, and most importantly always on the look out to explain results which fall outside of those anticipated. Why would NF Mike disagree with Michael when NF Mike knew how his bullets would perform before Michael even became a member of AR? I don't even disagree with Michael regarding how much better FN bullets penetrate (in flesh) than any other option, including RN's. But the 65% to 70% meplat stuff belongs to Gerrard, from a hell of a long way back, more than a decade. Michael is enjoying reinventing the wheel and claiming it as his own, rather for the most part it is Gerrard who has done the work. Also, Michael appears to value penetration above all, but appears to lack the experience to know that it isn't everything and there is such a thing as enough penetration. I wonder if penetration might be touted so highly by Michael's because he cannot measure, albeit falsley, any other parameter of bullet performance. Knock down or knock out effect or whatever you wish to call it for example. I recall reading of Bell hunting in heavy cover with his light rifles. He used a ladder to overcome the thick brush so that he didn't need to close with the elephants and could take more than one at a time. My recollection though is that most of his hunting was on more open grund, perhaps I am mistaken. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
JPK so you are saying that these two gentlemen-whom I have the utmost respect for-never had to shot a single elephant more than once and never lost a wounded one in that 10,000-15,000 elephants? Thats an amazing record--if true. "The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane." Mark Twain TANSTAAFL www.savannagems.com A unique way to own a piece of Africa. DSC Life NRA Life | |||
|
| one of us |
I have to say that the rcord of each of these men is fantastic, even though they inevitably missed a brain shot here and there, or even a heart shot here and there. Wouldn't you? The number of elephants these two shot, in aggregate, is a conservative 12,000-15,000. You are issing a couple of thousand on your low end. I wrote "no failures." Perhaps this will make it clearer, "No bullet failures." Harlan was adament in his writings, in his book and here on AR regarding the effectiveness of the Winchester steel jacketed RN solids. Ron Thomson less so, but wrote that he cannot attribute any failure to the Winchester 500gr steel jacketed solid bullet, though he reported having a few rounds of the ammo underpowered, which is thought to have been caused by poor storage in extreme heat causing the compressed powder to clump and then not thoughroghly burn. I would encourage you to read the first hand accounts of these two fantastic elephant hunters in their espective books. Both books are great reads. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
Agree.. as you wrote regarding the RN bullet users - inconsistent collection by multiple shooters, and no controls... As I see it, there is no doubt - you can kill an elephant with a good RN solid. No question.. The FN solids are just more of a good thing.. Better and more straight penetration...All my head shot elephants have been pass throughs no matter what angle - when using the FN solids in 458 and 585 calibers, .... -the only one not exiting was the Woodleigh shot elephant... But again - as written regarding the RN bullets - inconsistent collection and no controls again.. impossible to make statistics from.. But numerous tests clearly indicate the supeority of the FN bullets when it comes to straight and good penetration and effect on game compared to RN solids. | |||
|
One of Us |
 Good Grief JPK...... LOL......... I swear, you are more entertaining than Shootaway! And I can see that your Reading Comprehension Levels have not improved since this same old tired Bull Shit 5+ years ago..... Same old story tired story....... Listen, If I have not been able to get my point across to you in all this time, there is nothing I can say or do, or even to explain anything to you...... You are not capable of understanding the point....... You are the waste of time and energy..... Let's see if I CAN EXPLAIN WHY YOU ARE A WASTE OF SPACE....... I clearly state this in the post about AA 2230 and H-355.........
And the very next thing you come back to me with..........
 I do see that you changed the "Wound" up part, HEH HEH...... I think the first "Draft" said something to the effect "Panties in a Wad"...  Hell, I was going to tell you I don't wear panties, I prefer "Thongs"......... And then this..........
My ridiculous behavior regarding AA 2230 and H335???????????? You cannot read and comprehend what I said above concerning that????? Attack You? I agreed with you! How can it be possible that you can conceive or pull out of the comments I made about AA 2230 and H355 as some sort of attack, or disagreement with you concerning this matter? I will leave that for what it is, I can't say anything more on that, I can't do anything more than say I agree with your test on AA 2230. And yet still get that response from you? You have a problem JPK, you really should get it looked at by a professional. Oh, I don't always understand, or sometimes I just don't remember all the little terms used in various formats, FIGJAM? If I knew, I forgot......... Since I am a FIGJAM, I am just curious as to what that is......
In no way whatsoever.... I merely wished to point out that most of our bullets today did not begin life in a lab somewhere, by a lab tech, but by hunters or shooters with a need. Nothing more than that, if you got more than that out of it, then it does not surprise me knowing your "Reading Comprehension Level" as proven above...........
Again, for YEARS AND YEARS I have repeatedly told you, and stated for the record 100s of times, that the test work I have done here shows that there IS A POTENTIAL TO FAIL with RN Solids, never that each and every one of them would fail. I have used Barnes RN Solids to shoot elephants with and killed them. Honestly JPK, you need some serious help, Maybe a tutor will help you with your reading comprehension issue, as this has been stated 100s of times over again.....
Well, I reckon I am a "Sinner" now........ There were a hell of a lot of different Flat Nose bullets around.... LONG LONG BEFORE I became a proponent of Flat Nose Bullets. Or even knew anything about one for that matter...... I am a very seriously late comer to the notion.......... I tested I believe every single Flat Nose bullet that has been around for the last 20 yrs or so at least. I may have missed a few along the way because they were no longer available, or were out of my reach, but for the most part all were tested and documented. Not all were equal. As documented the original North Forks and GSC bullets were of good design. As were a few others. There were many that did not do well in one area or another. What you fail to understand, and comprehend, there are differences in designs that absolutely cannot be tested FIRST and foremost in any animal tissue, these factors have to be tested in a test medium to be understood. For example, the difference between a radius edge on the meplat, and a sharp edge on the meplat. These differences cannot be tested in animal tissue, they have to be tested in a consistent medium to understand. As long as the medium is aqueous. Nose Projection above the bands, this cannot be determined in animal tissue alone, one must have a readily available consistent medium to learn the differences. The difference twist rate makes for straight line penetration, this cannot be tested in animal tissue to understand the importance of twist rate. There are many factors, to date we have identified 8 Factors of Terminal Penetration of solids, I of course will not waste your time, since you are so experienced you have no need of this knowledge. None of these factors could have been understood by only shooting animal tissue.
Sorry, but your claims are frivolous at best, I make no such claims ole buddy, never have. This must have something to do with your reading comprehension again.... There have been many of us at work on these to update, identify what needed improvement, looking at 100s of different nose profiles, identifying meplat sizes, radius edges, nose projection above bands and so forth, and so on. I have not been alone in this great adventure of ours, there are many that have contributed greatly. And no, there is nothing new, just refined, to meet requirements, after understanding the 8 Factors of penetration. Even the Nose Profile is nothing new. And it is documented, and I have told anyone and everyone how the actual nose profile came about. No I did not invent the nose profile, but as a group, we redesigned the nose profile. No, I did not invent meplat size, but we came to better understand what does work, and what does not work, and why. HEH.... That would be like Gore stating he invented the internet! LOL............................. I have made no such statement ever.
I must thank you JPK from the bottom of my sinful heart, I have no earthly idea how I have possibly managed to get through life without your great and vast knowledge, and your great and vast experiences, I will most certainly do my very best to learn from you, and hopefully one day "Reap the Rewards" of success, and when I grow up I can say that "I learned everything I know from the great JPK" and the world will be at ease, there will be world peace amongst mankind, and all will be well within the universe, and just think, all because of you! Actually, the truth be known, I would much rather be putting bullet to buffalo myself........................ HEH......... Michael http://www.b-mriflesandcartridges.com/default.html The New Word is "Non-Conventional", add "Conventional" to the Endangered Species List! Live Outside The Box of "Conventional Wisdom" I do Not Own Any Part of Any Bullet Company, I am not in the Employ Of Any Bullet Company. I do not represent, own stock, nor do I receive any proceeds, or monies from ANY BULLET COMPANY. I am not in the bullet business, and have no Bullets to sell to you, nor anyone else. | |||
|
| One of Us |
 I agree with you Michael... JPK has not learned anything at all the past five years or so..  Well maybe much more than just five years ...  | |||
|
| one of us |
Where is the cosistent collection of controlled data regarding the penetration of FN solids or RN solids IN ELEPHANT HEADS? The consistent controlled collection of data not in elephant heads which cannot predict and is contradicted by real world results in elephant heads conclusivley proves that the so called data from so called tests is faulty. There can be too much penetration and there most certainly is enough penetration. Please explain why do you want your bullets to exit the heads of elephants on brain shots? Please explain the advantage of a bullet exiting an elephant head on a brain shot? JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| one of us |
Michael, Yes, I editted the "first draft," I thought the reference to your panties was rude. You have an amazing knack for re-writing even recent histroy Michael and you never let facts and reality stand in the way. So now rather than predicted failure RN's only enjoy "potential" failure. Phew, I am sure Harlan and Thomson, Duckworth, Bell, Manners, Selby and all of those other past elephant greats will be relieved to hear that. Here's a news flash, FN's are subject to failure. I have a collection of them from elephants bent and divotted, not all that disimilar to my collection of RN's. Plenty of photos on the web too. Were these failures predicted in your so called "tests," and at the rate seen in the real world "WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD" as you put it? JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
JPK, As you know from our private conversations of several years past...I have always valued your opinion. I have called/emailed you to ask your opinion several times and you were always gracious enough to help. You and Mike Brady are the 2 who got me shooting A-2230 in my .458 WM. But Mike would diverge from you now as he told me to give up on 500 gr bullets in the .458 WM years ago. He was so adamant in regards to solids...he would not even manufacture one. Anyway...my beef now is your blatant dieregard of valid scientific data that is quite useful and worse you sustitue emperical self-experience data. I as a board certified veterinary equine surgeon have been walking on the edge of science for years...collecting, analysing, and publishing results. I know what it takes to past muster from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Equine surgeons for years have had to adapt human data to horses. In residency training...the first thing they teach you is to be careful of attributing to much credit to small numbers or personal experience cases. But...if no one ever did that...we would never get anything new. So...I don't throw out what info you have shared either...I just use it with a grain of salt. Case in point...above you state that they had no bullet failures. I will maintain that they have NO DATA to make such a statement as I know for a fact that they did not dissect out all, most, or even 50% of those bullets. Now...lets look farther. You say the extra 100 fps makes a difference. But the guys you quote being the most knowledgeable were shooting Winchester Factory Ammo of the era. I have never seen anyone that independently tested that ammo ever say that it went faster than 2050 fps max...sometimes showing up as 1950 fps. Another point. You say that you would never shoot hard brass in your rifles...but you have seen pure copper bend...but you think it is OK to use steel jacketed bullets on occasion. One of the things that Michael has done is show that the NEW CEB solid brass bullets are safe for barrels and confirmed that the steel jacketed bullets produce the most strain of anything...yes something many have surmised from experience...but now we know for sure. Now...I will stipulate that at the time they came out...steel jacketed solids were best practices bullets. But now...we have solid brass solids which put less train on a barrel than the benchmark Woodleigh Soft...that is a good thing. I will also stipulate that RN solids will kill and ele cleanly...just as a .375 H%H will and as Bell states a .275 Rigby will...albeit I am not going to use either (esp .275) as my choice of best caliber for ele...actually I choose the .500 NE. I have several good Rhodesian friends who are also friends with Ron Thomson. One being John Rosenfel. John told me that Art Alpin used Thomson as a guinea pig and they concluded that they .458 WM was best with 450's. Now I have no proof to back that up...just my memory. But I do know that John switched and started shooting 450s long ago in his .458 WM M-70...or at least that is what he told me. In conclusion...I know Michael well. He is a very nice fellow. He has taught me immense amounts over the years in regard to reloading as did Mike Brady. In all of my time of knowing both Mike Brady and Michael McCourry...I have never known either to state a fact about a bullet, load, or cartridge that they did not have proof to back it up. They would simply say they did not know and were unashamed of stating that they did not know if...in fact...they did not know. Further...I have found both of them to be conservative in their advice. You are definitey entitled to your opinion...but it is just that your opinion. Unless you can produce "data" that can be scrutinized by all...to back statements up...everything said is just an opininion. I for one APPRECIATE Michael trying to quantitate things in finite terms with reproducable data. And...I have always appreciated advice from people like you whom have definitely shot way more ele than I have. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J. Lane Easter, DVM A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991. | |||
|
| One of Us |
In regards to the bolded statement above...I don't believe you can back that up. While many have said that RN's will work fine too...I can't find a single reference to anyone saying the flat nose failed to perform as predicted...but maybae I am wrong. Most of the guys you mention as shooting the RN's...did not get the chance to try the flat nose. Who know's they may have touted them as being better??? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J. Lane Easter, DVM A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991. | |||
|
| one of us |
It is impossible to get scientific control of elephant heads as a test medium. Every elephant is different, like snow flakes. Can't resist rubbernecking at a train wreck. This one is a spectacular derailment with clouds of toxic gas! I learned something from JPK, but doubt I will ever use this acronym, as it takes one to know one, defined by a google to Wikipedia: FIGJAM may refer to: FIGJAM (acronym), standing for "Fuck I'm Good, Just Ask Me" Figjam, a single by Butterfingers (Australian band) which refers to the above acronym When culling elephant, you shoot and keep shooting until they are down, shoot'em in head, shoot'em in heart, shoot'em in hip, bull, cow, calf .... Whether with 30-cal Spitzer FMJ or .458 Round Nose FMJ, results are similar. Never a single RN FMJ or brass RN solid ever stayed straight in the Iron Waterboard Buffalo. Too damaging to the side-walls of the bullet trap to even consider testing after a while, with my limited time and resources, replacing damaged side members and cross members hardware got expensive.  I could only afford to test FN solids, that, like this GSC FN, would stay straight in the trap until the terminal wobble, stopped by a plywood board between water compartments, usually penetrating twice the distance to the point where the RN went out the side of the trap:  | |||
|
| One of Us |
Take Note JPK, I only quoted above what was relevant to my reply to you........... And your statement above...... POSTED November 8th 2009 in a discussion WITH YOU......... My Post to You JPK.....
Your Reply to me............
My Reply........
And again... YOUR REPLY ON November 8 2009 at 10:08 AM............
My Response back to you Nov 8 2009 10:41 AM
On May 2, 2010 at 7:09 AM In another several pages of Bull Shit from YOU, I stated this clearly, which the entire world can go look at…………
TODAY YOU STATE THIS....... AGAIN..............
I think that I could go back in time and find other repeated over and over statements that I have made that if a bullet fails a particular test, then it is possible, and has potential to fail in the field.... This has been my stand on this issue from at least November 8, 2009, it was my Stand on that issue long before that date as well, and it is my stand on that issue today, 2/3/2014........... I have NOT re-written anything.... Some of, and more, of the statements I made have been repeated many many many times All of you are welcome to go back to the “Terminal Performance Thread” and view them, they have not been changed. I have not re-written anything, and as far as I am concerned anything JPK may have to say or not say, or FABRICATE, is just more bull shit Period…….. Its your READING COMPREHENSION LEVEL that requires some assistance.......... Maybe you do not have a clear understanding of Possible & Potential potential |pəˈtenCHəl| adjective [ attrib. ] having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future: noun 1 latent qualities or abilities that may be developed and lead to future success or usefulness: a young broadcaster with great potential | the potentials of the technology were never wholly controllable. • (often potential for/to do something) the possibility of something happening or of someone doing something in the future: possible |ˈpäsəbəl| adjective able to be done; within the power or capacity of someone or something: • able to happen although not certain to; denoting a fact, event, or situation that may or may not occur or be so: I don't know, but it seems you are not capable of understanding???? Or comprehending anything I have to say? People, Real people, NOT JPK..... Does my writing or methods confuse? Does anyone else have any issues or problems understanding what I am saying???? If so, please let me know, I may need to change how I state things?????????? Damn.......... JPK, you are dense! Honest to god I think something is terribly wrong with you....... I hope sincerely that this is the last time I have to attempt to clear that stupid ass statement you keep making..... However, I doubt it. Make no mistake, I have no aspirations of getting anything through to you JPK.... This entire reply is for the rest of the viewers out there, the lurkers, and my friends to see, and understand that I have not changed, lied, or done anything... I will allow them to decide for themselves, as for YOU, there is ZERO HOPE, no ambition to attempt reasonable conversation with you... It is NOT POSSIBLE, and there is ZERO POTENTIAL TO DO SO................... Michael http://www.b-mriflesandcartridges.com/default.html The New Word is "Non-Conventional", add "Conventional" to the Endangered Species List! Live Outside The Box of "Conventional Wisdom" I do Not Own Any Part of Any Bullet Company, I am not in the Employ Of Any Bullet Company. I do not represent, own stock, nor do I receive any proceeds, or monies from ANY BULLET COMPANY. I am not in the bullet business, and have no Bullets to sell to you, nor anyone else. | |||
|
One of Us |
Michael, Your post is very clear. But then 'most' of who have followed your work on the Terminal Bullet Performance thread have correctly understood this for years. To paraphrase your bullet testing work (from my prospective, and please correct me if wrong) it is, and has been, to identify the most consistent and reliable performance from expanding and solid bullets within a single set of testing criteria. Although your work is primarily focused on DG hunting your bullet test work has encompassed bullets and calibers not related to DG. Your position is, and has been, that a bullet that fails your testing criteria 'may fail to perform optimally' in actual game hunting situations. You have demonstrated appropriate correlation between bullet performance within your testing process and within the relating game during field hunting situation. And finally, and most importantly, your bullet testing work is performed solely due to 'personal interest' and 'personal future field use', all at great personal time and financial expenditure. Again to paraphrase! I believe you've basically stated, "Use the information if you find it useful, ignore it if not." Keep up the good work!  Oops forgot. Some of us are getting bored so get back to the TBP thread and post some new work results!  Jim  "Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid" John Wayne | |||
|
| One of Us |
Well, we have gotten a long way from the original question on this thread. But it is a reflection of the interest in this topic. It is provably one of the most active threads on this forum. Not only are the responders very active posters, many are also very passionate about their positions. Please be courteous and do not resort to name calling in your re ponces. Such tactics do nothing to advance your position for many of it just detracts from your credibility. Several posters have brought up the scientific validity of experiments or anecdotal field data. Anecdotal field data are seldom collected by scientifically sound data collection methods although it can be analyzed as such. If I understood him correctly, Lane has mentioned scientific data supporting the contention that FN solids are better than RN bullets. I get the impression that he was talking about Michael's data collected from a wet magazine ballistic medium. So there isn't any confusion, I can assure everyone that his data would not be accepted by any peer reviewed journal. In most cases he only tested two or three bullets of the same construction, design, caliber, weight and velocity. A couple of years ago I made some recommendations to him on testing protocols and sample size recommendations to help firm up his tests. He was unable to use them because he felt it was impractical for him to meet those design restrictions. That was entirely understandable. Now before anyone jumps on me for those last statements, let me say that I have never seen any reason to doubt the results he has reported as being an accurate description of what he saw. When we have disagreed, it has been in his interpretation of those results as they pertain to field performance. Also, Michael is well aware that his experiments do not meet scientific standards and has never claimed that they do. On the other hand field tests of bullets on elephants create another problem in that bullets fired into elephants seldom follow the same course of penetration or meet the same tissues, muscles and bones. Both of these lead to problems in scientifically validating the results. When a scientist designs a study one of the initial steps that is necessary is to determine the needed sample size. There actually formulas that can estimate the needed sample size. There are several factors that we need to know but the two most important are an estimate of the expected variance (sd) and the level of precision that we will accept as proof. This precision is usually expressed as the probability of the difference being real, It is normally expressed as p=0.05. It means that another measurement will fall outside the expected range one time out of twenty. To goive an example of how variance can make comparisons difficult. Not long ago one poster reported that he hit an elephant too high on a frontsl brain shot and recoverd the 750 grain 577 bullet under the skin near the tail bone. Maybe seven feet of penetration? Another reported that the same bullet stopped in the head of another elephant on an angled head shot, somewhere around 2 feet of penetration give or take a little. If we compute the variance on those shots it will be very large and mean a very large sample size would be needed. Now saying all of this doesn't make either anecdotal evidence or evidence from experiments such as Michael's as being irrelevant or useless. For instances, to my knowledge it has never been scientifically proven that the sun will come up tomorrow morning. Although, few of us doubt that it will. We base that belief on anecdotal evidence, it has so far, so it will tomorrow. But we do have to admit that there is a potential that it won't. Michael has stated that the RN solid has a potential to veer in game. That is very true but the FN also has a potential to veer in game. This leads me to have two questions. The first is which has the greater potential to veer? The second, does either have a high enough potential to be a problem in the field? On second thought, I will add one more question, has either question been answered with any degree of certainty or tested scientifically? 465H&H | |||
|
| One of Us |
465h&h, Michael has run tests that show in his test media RN solids are more likely to veer of course than certain FN solids. Do you have any data that shows in a different test media FN solids are more likely to veer off course than RN solids? Or is you premise simply that RN solids have been used effectively on elephants for generations, therefore they are good enough? Thanks in advance, Dave | |||
|
| one of us |
Nice try Michael, another example of selction for distortion. The few selections you cite fail to convey the scope of your effort to claim as your own, as new and as valid to the point of being incotevertble long known information about FN solids. And yet another example of never letting the facts or reality stand in the way. For example now it is "potential" to veer but on page 3 it was "very strong possibility," of a RN veering sufficiently to cause a missed brain shot. Explain to Harlan and Thomson and all of those other imensely successful elephant hunter through the last century and more how having used a hemisherical RN solid "that there is the very strong possibility that the unstable round nose took a turn". Elephant heads are NOT made of wet newsprint. Your so called "tests" have no predictive ability and provide nothing that can be considered "data." JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
Dave, Thank you for the question. We do know and Michael readily admits that data collected on penetration from wet pack does not directly depict what happens in the soft tissue of elephants. If RN steel jacketed solids behaved as badly in game as they do in wet pack, no one including me would ever use one. Those of us that have used them in game have had few if any problems. Wet pack does appear to be a good meium to compare the penetration among FN solids or soft point bullets. Not so for RNs bullets. Why the difference, we don't know although there are some theories. I have never personally tested any bullet in an artifical medium but have noted bullet performance in quite a few elephants. Somewhere around 70 bullets of both RN and FN designs. Also about the same number in buffalo. I have yet to see any significant veering from any bullet. In my opinion veering in game is such a rare occurance I pay it little mind. I have read on here that RN solids penetrate deeper in a pine board medium than FN solids but I have no personal knowledge of that. If that is the case, then possibly pine boards make a better testing medium than wet pack to estimate penetration of solids on elephant heads. I don't believe either nose design veered significantly in the pine boards. 465H&H | |||
|
| One of Us |
465H&H, thanks for the prompt and thoughtful reply! Dave | |||
|
| one of us |
First you should recognize that I am a very strong and very early proponent of using FN solids on elephants. I am a much earlier proponent than Michael, by almost a decade. And I first used FN solids on elephants a decade ago. This fact is easily lost in these threads. However, After having switched to using only FN solids I discoverd a couple of drawbacks, which were strengths of RN's. So I switched to using a RN solid for the first shot and a FN for all shots required, if any, thereafter. The draw backs I discovered by actually using FN solids on elephants are less reliability in the head bones of an elephant than a steel jacketed solid and the lack of striking effect, knock down effect, thump or whatever you wish to call it on a missed brain shot. I attribute this to the greater time over which a FN transfers energy compared to aRN, which rarely exits an elephant head, and if so ends in the neck. I have dug many bullets from elephants, I would have to go through records to give you an accurate number but it is not far from 100. Of the RN's shot into heads not one has veered. Of those recovered and shot into bodies I have not found one that veered, but it is much more difficult to determine if a bullet curved in a body to a minor degree than in an elephant head, so this may have occured. If so, it was immaterial. Of the FN's I hace recovered from the head both exhibited great deformation. I do not label deformation as failure so long as the bullet tracked straight and penetrated adequately. One of the two recovered was found deformed against the off side zygomatic arch, after transversing the skull, including the brain. The other deformed to a banana shape and veered sharply while failing to penetrate bone below the eye socket. A third bullet fired on a frontal brain shot failed to penetrate the plate of bone below the zygomatic arch and just forward of the ear hole. The elephant was killed, and the bone displayed a gouge where the bullet glanced off. Regarding FN solids discovered in the body (some of hich were fired through the head on a frontal brain shot) I recovered one that has a large divot on the nose that had veered off course by, iirc without looking at records, about 8". But the total penetration was ~54", iirc, and veering occured at an accelerating rate after the bullet had tranversed the skull front to back, including the brain, so in my view that is no failure. All other FN's solids have either been found after extensive penetration judge to be straight or almost straight, exited or were lost in the elephant after extensive straight line penetration. One natable example was a bullet fired into the skull on a successful frontal brain shot which was recovered a few inches from the elephant's anus. Nothing beats a FN for body shot on an elephant! Much of the "debate" between Michael and me is based on Michael's every changing charecterization of hemisherical RN solid perfrmance. That charecterization never rises above essentially, "they suck!" Unfortunately my own experience, that of several other of the most experienced elephant hunters on this site and all of history do not support Michael's charecterization. JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| one of us |
465H&H,, I cannot concur that Michael readily admits that the results of shooting into wet newsprint does not translate to predicted performance in elephant. Some days he does, some days he doesn't and is admamant that his test both translate and are predictive!!! JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| one of us |
Lane, I will respond at greater length, if/when I get the chance but: Harlan tested the Winchester ammo on different occasions and it came up very near my own handloads. I don't recall the specific numbers but they are close.. He wrote the results in his book and also repeated them, or at least the gist that the Winchester load was much, much more powerful than todays factory fodder here on AR. He repeated that he is satisfied with 2,100fps and enjoys every fps over that. In my discussions with John Rosenfels he advocated the hard to find Woodleigh 480gr steel jacketed solid with a 458wm canelure. Alphin's bullet was proven by 500grs to provide the lest penetration of those he tested, which included Woodleighs, old RN Barnes brass of 500grs, Gerrards. No one should advocate shooting a 500gr mono metal in the 458wm, it is too long!!!! First shot penetration on an elephant, assuming the first shot is a brain shot,, as, imo, it should be, needs to be adequate to transverse the skull front to back and not more. The benefit of the RN for the first shot is that all ~5,000lb' of energy is duped into the head, creating significantly more knock down effect than a 450gr FN with similar energy. (Because the FN disipates energy over a longer distance and over greater time as it penetrates so much further.. That makes the RN solid the better choice for the first shot (unless you are an internet hunter who never, ever misses a shot!) Given that I want the performance of the steel jacketed RN and have none of the same concerns regarding penetrating elephant head bones for any subsequent shot, I am happy with the copper FN's. (But will look into other alternatives, including FN steel jacketed solids, in preparation for my next elephant hunt.) JPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
There are several published articles form the 60's, 70's, and 80's looking at the velocity from the Winchester factory .458 W M ammunition. I will look for them in my stuff. My recollection was that the fastest anybody ever tested it out of a hunting rifle was 2050 fps and some found it to be as slow as 1950 fps. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J. Lane Easter, DVM A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991. | |||
|
One of Us |
Bullet exit in a bull elks rib cage 30 caliber 180 grain from impact velocity 2600 FPS, which calculates to 2700 FPE  [/URL]Exit in the same elks rib cage from a 440 grain flat point hard cast at 950 FPS for 888 FPE  I am holding a loaded 300 win mag for size comparison in both pictures. You be the judge of the importance of energy _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
jwp, What caliber was the 440 gr bullet? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J. Lane Easter, DVM A born Texan has instilled in his system a mind-set of no retreat or no surrender. I wish everyone the world over had the dominating spirit that motivates Texans.– Billy Clayton, Speaker of the Texas House No state commands such fierce pride and loyalty. Lesser mortals are pitied for their misfortune in not being born in Texas.— Queen Elizabeth II on her visit to Texas in May, 1991. | |||
|
| one of us |
I believe you are citing results from after the ammo was detuned. When it was originally loaded it was much hotter according Harlan and other sources. I know by the 80's it was detuned. Hopefully I will find time to look through Harlan's book tomorrow and to respond to your post re collection of field dat. jPK Free 500grains | |||
|
| One of Us |
ledvm it was a 500 JRH, .500 _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
You lost cred with me when posted that McPherson was wrong. _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
| One of Us |
http://www.gsgroup.co.za/faqexpansion.html What you have experienced is classic HV performance. When we started down the road with the HV design, we noticed that the faster we drive the bullets, the more dramatic and the more frequent were the incidents of one shot knockdowns. With no bullets recovered from game in the initial testing phases, we assumed that the bullets mushroomed and had extremely high weight retention, as that was what our HP range was doing. We also noticed that the softer (easier to expand) we made the HVs, the better they worked at all distances on game. All along we were puzzled by the fact that exit holes appeared to be only slightly bigger than calibre size. Close shots produced bigger exit holes but meat damage was still less than what we expected, given the speeds we were getting. Then, in fairly quick succession, we were confronted by some very strange facts. We recovered a number of small calibre bullets from large animals where the bullets worked extraordinarily well. All of them were the same shape. The petals were completely torn off and the bullet front was expanded to a virtually flat shape. Weight retention was around 80 to 85 %. Experimentally, we then designed some hard bullets and some soft bullets and went shooting animals. In every instance where we had double calibre or more expansion with full weight retention, the effect on the animal was less dramatic than with the "soft" bullets that broke down to 80% or so. To add to the confusion, our FN bullets were becoming an unprecedented success. Wound channels from the FN bullets resembled those of soft nosed premium bullets that expand to double calibre and more. Clearly something was better about the soft HV design and the FN flat nose. For someone like me with forty years worth of input that said "good mushroom, maximum weight retention" it was impossible to figure out. The results were indisputable though, and the HV concept was born. While we designed HV bullets that would go as fast as possible, completely expand in one to two inches, throw off the three petals and then carry on as an expanded cylindrical shape, we searched for an answer to explain why the effect was so dramatic. The explanation came in the form of an excellent book by Duncan MacPherson - "Bullet Penetration". His research reveals a couple of things 1. It removes all doubt that the most valuable wound trauma incapacitation mechanism is a single large wound channel. 2. It proves conclusively that the most reliable instrument with which to inflict the maximum amount of disruption was a vertical faced, sharp edged projectile. The reason why a cylinder shape is so much better than all other is because of the manner in which it displaces the tissue it encounters. A rounded shape of any description displaces tissue to the sides of the wound channel in the time it takes for the front of the shape to move forwards and be replaced by the full width of the shape, creating a primary wound channel. Although this happens very, very fast, a rounded shape therefore contains a time and distance element that translates to a level of force imparted to the tissue. This makes the tissue continue to stretch away from the bullet path, creating a temporary wound channel, until the elasticity of the tissue overcomes the force and brings it back to the original position. Some of the tissue would have been disrupted and this would add to the total size of the primary wound channel. A cylinder shape encountering tissue, displaces the tissue to the side vastly faster on a time/distance basis than any other shape. This imparts a far higher force to the tissue, pushing it much further from the primary wound channel, disrupting more tissue beyond the limits of elasticity and ultimately contributing to a much bigger primary wound channel. Now there was clarity about the FN bullets as well. The HV design was in fact only an HV in flight. A couple of inches after impact, it would resemble an FN bullet. In practise we see with HV and FN bullets that soft aqueous tissue such as the lungs, liver, brain, large blood vessels and stomach contents suffer massive trauma with HV and FN bullets. Firmer tissue such as meat, heart and kidneys survive much better. Another point MacPherson mentioned in his findings was that, when the larger temporary cavity included a vital element, such as the liver (or spine in the case of your two shots), the damage to those elements was enough to cause disruption and incapacitation _____________________________________________________ A 9mm may expand to a larger diameter, but a 45 ain't going to shrink Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. - Winston Churchill | |||
|
one of us |
If the discussion is still about 458 powder options, here's the load I worked up for a 2100 fps velocity, using Woodleigh Weldcores and solids: 63 grains Hodgdon 4198 Extreme. This works perfectly in my Steyr Model S. At 50 yards I get tight cloverleafs. In the field the load accounted for a one-shot kill on a cape buffalo, and similar results on sable. This is the max load for my gun. For other rifles, I would start lower and work up. Hope this helps. LTC, USA, RET Benefactor Life Member, NRA Member, SCI & DSC Proud son of Texas A&M, Class of 1969 "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?" Robert Browning | |||
|
One of Us |
JPK, my experience on my 5 eles has been in stark contrast to yours. Specifically, I've only recovered one FN bullet that deformed, that being one found on the ground after exiting from a body shot taken as insurance once the ele was already down. That bullet, shown below, was found with dirt and bits of rock embedded, with a couple of large lengthwise gashes, suggesting the deformation occurred as a result of impacting the rocks, not any structure within the elephant. Also of note in contrast to your statements, 3 of these eles were shot with side brain points of impact, specifically 2 up close and just under or on the arch, with a complete straight line pass through. Also in contrast to your statements, with the exception of the one frontal that struck very high and to the right, all dropped the animal directly in their tracks with close misses to the brain. It's possible the last one 6 weeks ago actually hit the brain and killed it out right, but they have all received an insurance shot or two. Point being that whatever force it is that transfers to the brain, knocking them out or down, is certainly happening most authoritatively with the FN bullets I've been shooting. Just to back up those statements, here are the 5 bullets I've recovered from eles I've taken. In addition, I've reposted the video of one of the cows I shot in 2010, showing a complete knock down energy transfer, or whatever it is that does it, where the brain WAS missed, but the effect still occurred. There are 3 additional videos posted on AR from me showing the same effect with other eles. So again, my experience is drastically different from yours. 5 bullets recovered ... Far left, insurance shot taken as a frontal brain and found in chest cavity of bull, 2nd from left, frontal from the video below and found in chest cavity; next 2 are the missed frontal and the deformed insurance shot found on the ground in rocks, far right, copper FN recovered laying on the ground from insurance shot taken as a frontal and found just under the neck/shoulder area while lying on the ground.  Video of second cow taken with a frontal that missed the brain, but still dropped her in her tracks with a FN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...esixFc9hTGGQ&index=1 | |||
|
| One of Us |
Todd, I am wondering how you determined that you missed the brain on those four shots where the elephant wasn't stone dead on receiving the bullet? Did you open the brain cavity to look for damage to the brain or have you assumed that you missed the brain because the elephant wasn't instantly killed? I'm not doubting your word but it is all too common to make such a conclusion. Also you can't compare JPKs observation with yours as he was using a 458 Win and I believe if I remember correctly, you were using a 577 Nitro. The amount of energy between these two cartridges is no where near equal. Please correct me if I am remembering wrongly. 465H&H | |||
|
| One of Us |
Thanks Alf for making the effort to clarify and improve spelling and punctuation. That was helpful and I appreciate that!  The examples also helped to visualize what you presented.Yet, it still leaves us with actual results and field experience as to the practical basis of evaluation, not the physics (science) of it... While informative to the scientific mind, it's merely interesting to the pragmatic mind, where most of us (hunters and shooters)live!  In the end, we will use what appears to do the best job for the coin expended. Thanks also to Michael for his investment in energy, time and expense that we all freely profit from. Bob www.bigbores.ca "Let every created thing give praise to the LORD, for he issued his command, and they came into being" - King David, Psalm 148 (NLT) | |||
|
| One of Us |
Walt, I was using a 500NE on all but one, that one being the two CEBs you see in the middle with the one that is deformed. Yes, on that one I used a 577NE. Some we opened the head, some we did not but yes, I'm largely making those statements based on the fact that they weren't killed outright. I remember your stated opinion that the brain can be hit without killing the ele outright every time. What is your opinion on the first shot on the cow in that video posted above concerning whether or not I hit the brain? I say I clearly missed to her right but she still fell straight on her arse. But as much as anything, I'm making TWO statements here, that being that the FN bullets DID and DO transfer energy effectively to put an ele down from a close brain miss, AND that these FN bullets are not prone to deformation as stated. At least not in my limited experience to date. Maybe a larger sample will cause me to re-evaluate, but at this point, the experience so far has been 100% consistent, and in line with the findings Michael has reported. I also realize JPK is shooting copper bullets, not brass, but there is one (VERY small sample I agree) copper NF in the line up here. Not only did that bullet NOT deform and from close range as it being the insurance shot, it was fired from about 5 yards (I took one step toward him to clear a line of brush), but the first shot that dropped him was fired, from close range (6 yards) right into or actually just below the arch and angling up with the result being a straight line pass through and the bull dropping in his tracks. Not looking to start a pissing match with JPK, but just pointing out that what he's stated here in several places is different from what I've experienced to date. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Todd, I haven't been able to see any difference in how they go down between those where the brain is missed and those where the brain was hit. I probably just haven't seen enough to make that determination. I really can't tell where your bullet hit on the video, but since she is slightly turned to her left when you shot and you called the shot to the right you probably missed the brain or if you hit the left temporal lobe it wasn't very deep. I have based my determination that two of mine were brain shot but not killed outright by opening the head on one and aligning up the entrance hole in the forehead with the exit hole on the back of the skull. It seems automatic for PHs to say the brain was missed if the elephant wasn't killed instantly. That was even the mantra in Parks. My two examples have put fallacy to that opinion. Both your 500 and esp the 577 have a lot more energy at the target than JPKs 458 Win. The 458 is really marginal on this shot but as CB would say "it is on the right side of the margin". Also, for a bullet to deform it has to hit a rounded bone a glancing blow to be deformed like JPKs in my experience. As we both know brass bullets are less likely to deform than either steel jacketed solids or copper solids. The fly in the ointment here is that even though a brass solid doesn't show deformation, it doesn't mean that it didn't glance off the bone, veer or even tumble. If any bullet hits a very hard rounded bone a glancing blow, the bullets contact side has to slow down more than the opposite side. When that happens, the bullet can't maintain stability and is subject to veering or tumbling. I wouldn't be concerned about reporting what you saw. I appreciate bullet action reports from good observers. Thanks! 465H&H | |||
|
| One of Us |
Yea, actually, she turned to her left about the time I shot causing me to hit to her right / my left (or right of the brain). It didn't hit the left temporal lobe as it would have been more in line with hitting her RIGHT temporal lobe. Anyway, it was recovered in the chest cavity IIRC. In this picture, from the blood stain, you can get an idea of how far to my left (or to her right) the first bullet impacted although I believe the vertical placement was about right for her head position. The second impact I don't have a picture of I don't think, but you can also clearly see the 3rd and 4th insurance shots taken into the spine area and angled between the shoulders.  | |||
|
| one of us |
Well tod williams I thought this was a conversation, but you seem to want to make it a shit slinging contest and your remarks to my opinnions were rude and out of line..Why not just keep things to the subject and agree to disagree or the next thing you will be doing is calling names..It ruins good conversation, we don't all have to agree on any subject. I'm going to pick and use my bullets and certainly you will do the same. Ray Atkinson Atkinson Hunting Adventures 10 Ward Lane, Filer, Idaho, 83328 208-731-4120 rayatkinsonhunting@gmail.com | |||
|
| One of Us |
Now raay atkinson, why on earth would you think I would be calling you names in this conversation? | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 5 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Big Bores 458 win mag without compressed loads?
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia