How well do the very big calibers like the .700 Nitro Express, .700 AHR and the 4 bore put down elephant and other very big game? i've read a couple of times about rounds like the .799 NE and the 4 bore not having good penetration on the skulls of elephants. i guess the bigger bullet diameter also means it needs more velocity for penetration power. anyone know more about this or have experience with a round like this on dangerous game? will going slightly smaller in bullet diameter like the .577 or .600s give better results on game? thanks

The terminal bullet performance thread is long but should answer a lot of your question.

quote:

How do the really big calibers like the .700s perform on elephant?

Shittily, if you don't place the bullet properly.

The first elephant shot with a 700NE was never recovered.

It's the BULLET per given Caliber----Not the Caliber! Combine a proper bullet with Caliber, different story!

Same as asking about a particular Cartridge--Cartridge is merely the engine that pushes the "Work Horse", which is the Bullet!

It's not the caliber, it's not the cartridge, it's not the rifle, IT's The "BULLET", then you can talk Caliber, Cartridge, Rifle from that point. Without the right Bullet, the rest is nothing but Blah Blah Blah and wasted conversation.

No issues towards you Pez at all, but folks just have not learned to ask the right question yet.

Michael

The work of Michael458 along with srose and supported by Dan at CEB has really blown that myth out of the water. Though now over 300 pages, if you go to

"Find" at the top of the page

Click "Advanced Search"

Put in .620 in the "with all of the words"

Choose "Big Bores" as the forum to be searched

and put in Michael458 in the "Author Name" section

You will come up with the threads showing the results of CEB #13 bullets in .620.

Do the same but substitute 577 for 620 and you will see the results with Sam's 577NE.

Compare the penetration results of the CEB to other bullets including various other FNs as well as round-nose projectiles.

You can do a similar search for other calibers and get specific results on them as well since you seem to be interested in a wide range of calibers from 338 on up.

It's a good read ...

I dunno.....I'm kinda thinking about using a 62gr BBW#13 22Hornet.....................

After reading and corresponding with Michael458, we decided to use the CEB #13 480gr in our .458Lott rifles for our Eles in 3 weeks. At Michaels urging we are also taking the CEB NonCon 450gr to try on PG and report back to him. We expect a very successful hunt.

BTW, we've both ordered 458B&M rifles, built by SSK, for delivery in about 12 weeks. We plan to use loads of 450gr #13 and 420gr NonCon CEB bullets in that rifle. Hope to use them on 2012 safari.

its the bullet, its the bullet, its the bullet

quote:

Originally posted by drewhenrytnt:
I dunno.....I'm kinda thinking about using a 62gr BBW#13 22Hornet.....................

HA!

Michael and Sam are working on a CEB#13 profile for a BB! Out of my 1965 Daisy pump gun, it should be a dandy!

All you need for ELE is a solid brass 55gr .22LR cup point Bore Rider. Shot placement is everything. Heck the eskimos have been doing polar bears for years with Federal Bulk Pack .22LR's
For those without the right skill-set (like me for instance) a .600OK with my copper bore riders works just fine. Dont know about the .700NE but assume the same is true.-Rob

I think a 900 grain BBW#13 in 12 gauge at 1200 FPS would put an elephant on his keister.

HA!

Michael and Sam are working on a CEB#13 profile for a BB! Out of my 1965 Daisy pump gun, it should be a dandy![/QUOTE]

SHHHHH! That was supposed to be a secret!
Anybody got a 17 Rem we can borrow? We'll see if the #13 continues through that caliber. A 700 with a #13 ought to shoot through a tank!

quote:

Originally posted by srose:
HA!

Michael and Sam are working on a CEB#13 profile for a BB! Out of my 1965 Daisy pump gun, it should be a dandy!

SHHHHH! That was supposed to be a secret!
Anybody got a 17 Rem we can borrow? We'll see if the #13 continues through that caliber. A 700 with a #13 ought to shoot through a tank![/QUOTE]



I have a couple of those rimfire 17s around here somewhere, and some loads, I will just snatch the bullet out, and we can hammer a BBW#13 in!

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Lang:
its the bullet, its the bullet, its the bullet

16 Posts! You learn fast! Some of these Yo-Yos been around here for years and still have not learned!



Welcome Jim, glad to have you!



Michael

Ultra Bores have never been very impressive. I remember the first 600 OK that Corbin brought down, Pre-BBW#13, he had it loaded with Woodleigh Softs, some cast, and a few things like that. Not much to it. Actually get deeper penetration with a 45/70. I don't recall testing any round nose solids in it. I think later we did test a Barnes Banded that Corbin got onto, and it did very well, straight penetration, nominal velocity of 2000-2100 fps drove it to 50 some odd inches I think. Very good, but any of my 458s were driving deeper and giving just as much performance. Not much to it, big noise, BIG BIG HEAVY RIFLE. Michael not impressed.

Sam brought a wonderful 577 Nitro Double VC down. Might have been the greatest DR I ever seen. While it had short barrels, it still BIG GUN HEAVY GUN and shooting a 750 gr Woodleigh RN penetrated all of 14 inches! Big Noise, big gun Blah Blah Blah, not very impressive performance. Michael is not impressed, I can get better performance with much less gun.

Whoa and Behold, a 750 gr BBW#13 Solid fell out of the sky one day, fell into one of Sam's loaded and primed 577 cases and stuck. Well, we decided to shoot it and see what happened? There was no reason on earth to back up the 1st test box, which is 64 inches of test medium, with box #2. But for some reason we did! NO ULTRA BORE HAD EVER even made it to the back of the first box. Shot the first round, Sam checks, states it passed completely through! Now this is my friend Sam, I am quite sure he is joking with me, I don't believe him, pulling my leg I know! Sure as hell, great big exit in the rear of the box. I still don't believe it, it was a fluke, found a void in the medium. No Ultra Bore can pass 64 inches. Ain't Gonna Happen! Round #2, now we have two Exits! I am astounded to say the least!






Now the Mighty Ultra Bores start to get impressive!












When Sam left for Africa, I think November 2010, with his 577 Nitro, I told him that the second he set foot on the continent, he had the most effective 577 Nitro Load, that had EVER been in the history of the 577! And that he would be very successful. His 577 was loaded with 750 gr BBW#13 Solids, in which he was successful with these on elephant and buffalo, and some more things I think as well.

It's the bullet! Then discuss Caliber/Cartridge, and then find a rifle to put them in!

I don't own a Ultra Bore! But I am now Impressed! I waiting on Winchester to make an action big enough to handle one!

HEH.........

M
Michael

Here's the low tech version, 1.005", .800" meplat, 1965 grains in Lyman#2. Impact velocity about 1000fps, but under the hide on the far side after several feet of elephant.

Bob

quote:

Originally posted by Omnivorous_Bob:



Here's the low tech version, 1.005", .800" meplat, 1965 grains in Lyman#2. Impact velocity about 1000fps, but under the hide on the far side after several feet of elephant.

Bob

Now THAT is cool! I love old school!!!

I think the test in unfair to woodleigh as I suspect even a fast 12 bore roundball or 8 or 4 bore conical is probably going to beat 14" easily in that test.

Which begs the question how did the roundnose FMJ(in everything from .303 up) replace the entire era of 8/4 bore guns within a few years?

The boreguns main failing was inability to stop charging elephant reliably...Sir Sam white baker tried every combo including steel tipped conicals loaded to almost 10,000ftlbs and only got the frontal brain shot to work on one big male elephant, ever.

If woodleigh is able to pull this most important shot of all regularly, the test must surely be failing to measure a bullets ability to do so.

Hi Karl,
Been shooting any big boomers lately?

Shooting that Woodleigh RN-FMJ into a stack of dry plywood will keep it going straight, see Dave Estergaards work.
Maybe it is by side pressure or tail slap on the bullet in a minimally cavitating, first-order resistance (directly proportional to velocity) medium.
Then with the lesser resistance of the RN compared to the FN, it could penetrate farther than the FN.

Elephant skull bone layers must supply enough side-slap on the RN-FMJ to keep it going straight enough to make the brain shot, sometimes.
I am guesssing some of those elephant brain shots gone bad so often are due to veering RN-FMJ solid.
Maybe enough sinus air or fluid or "visco-elastic" tissue was encountered mixed with the bone to allow the RN to veer in some cases?

Also on body shots, if the RN-FN goes squirrely after 14" of test medium, or 28" of animal body, it is then only just starting to veer and will likely still get the wounding done.

Definitely not as reliable as the FN, which will stay straight in any medium or game animal, even the severe test stuff at MIB in South Carolina.

Karl,

I am going to disagree with RIP in the friendliest way possible on several issues that he raised. First of all you can show that RN steel jacketed solids penetrate either less or more than FN mono-metal solids simply by choosing the right artificial media. None of them are directly comparable to what you will see in animal tissue. I probably have as much experience with this type of RN solid as anyone here on elephant or buffalo with the exception of some of the PHs such as Ivan Carter or Phs with a lot of culling experience. Most PHs use RN solids in their back up weapons and I have never heard one complain that they veer off course on animals. They continue to use them with every confidence. Also I have been requesting info on this forum from those that have seen bullets veer off course in animals for several years. So far I have info on three cases where RN steel jacketed solids have veered and two cases where FN solids have veered. Considering how many more RN solids are used than FN solids, the evidence is not certain in either direction. In other words the jury is still out on this issue.

I have used both types of bullets in .458,.468 and .475 diameter bullets on buff and elephants, all at around 2,150 fps velocity. On body shots the FN bullets have penetrated farther on head shots on elephant except the .458 diameter Woodleigh 550 grain RN solid has out penetrated them all. It was the only of the above bullets that completely penetrate an elephant skull when the bullet is placed into the top of the head on a line to exit under the jaw.

In my opinion, the use of artificial media can provide important info but we must be aware of the limitations of such testing. The final test has always been and will continue to be what the bullet does in animal tissue.

465H&H

465 and Karl,

We have discussed these points in the past but some people will always believe that what happens in Artificial media is what happens all the time in animals an nothing will persuade them otherwise.

Woodleigh's have worked for years and will continue to work. The problem is the Original woodleigh's can't be changed because gun owners the world over would be up in arms over the issue.

However for those who want to use something else, plenty of options now exist.

Thank god we have thousands of big animals in Australia we can test bullets on instead of having to rely on test media !

.
.

465HH and Nigel


Jesus H Christ! Ya'll have rode the "Woodleigh Horse" until he has completely collapsed, and now you want to beat on him some more!



Ya'll need a new "Song and Dance" routine, this one is getting "Dated".

And Nigel, you don't pay near enough attention or very forgetful one or the other. So I will repeat it, for maybe the 1000th time;

What is successful in the test medium--IS Successful In The field.

I have taken them all over the world and it is true, buffalo, elephant, hippo, lion, bear, numerous thin skinned animals you name it, I tested it, if it was successful in the test medium, it was successful in the field--End of Story! To suggest otherwise or to insinuate I have said otherwise is not exactly a fact.

I am quite sure the "Some People" refers to me, get the story right! You will not ever see where I have stated that because a Woodleigh, or RN fails in the test medium it fails 100% of the time in the field! You cannot find that, it does not exist. I have said, and WILL ALWAYS state, that the potential for failure is there and exists in any round nose solid projectile. Any bullet can fail, and has, and will, I will take the one that has the least potential fail.

Again, What is successful in the test medium, is in fact successful in the field.

And yes, I do choose to use something else, never a round nose solid ever again, regardless of Woodleigh, Barnes, or any other round nose solid or fmj. My opinion, there is a hell of a lot better choices than that.

I don't care that something has been used for a 100 years, that 1000s have been killed, that PHs all over the world use RN or that culling they use RN--more than likely all they got too, and not much choice in the matter, and in many cases, not enough knowledge to even consider other choices, so take those weak and lame arguments elsewhere. Just because they used black powder way back before and it worked fine, throw the smokeless out? They also used arrows and bows before that, killed plenty, so throw the guns out?



Ride that Woodleigh Horse until he falls over, and beat him some more!



Michael

If they don't get it by now they never will!!!

I'm with Michael here. Of course, testing in the field is the ultimate test. However, Michael's media is very tough and it is excellent for "comparative" testing. Do the round nose solids work in the field? Sure, we know they do. Hunters have been using them with success for many years. However, I think Michael's tests both in the media and in the field show that the BBW#13s with a 67% meplat work better! than the round nose solids. For what it is worth, I think the Woodleigh Hydro is a super bullet as well. These bullets have literally been a transformation.

Michael, most of here have done this sort of bullet testing and know how much work it is. My hat is off to you my friend.

Michael458

I knew that would get you out of the woodwork !!! LOL

I wasn't having a go at you in particular, I think what you do is good in general (and a lot of hard work) and you know my views as we have discussed before, it's just some think test media is the be all and end all of it and that is not the case.

I think your post after mine was a good one.

I reckon if I fired 10 x 577 FMJ RN into big Buffalo, I Wouldn't find one of them that changed direction at 14".

I might see if I can give this a go.

I haven't been on the horse for a while so am getting tired and better get off

.

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Karl,

I am going to disagree with RIP in the friendliest way possible on several issues that he raised. First of all you can show that RN steel jacketed solids penetrate either less or more than FN mono-metal solids simply by choosing the right artificial media. None of them are directly comparable to what you will see in animal tissue. I probably have as much experience with this type of RN solid as anyone here on elephant or buffalo with the exception of some of the PHs such as Ivan Carter or Phs with a lot of culling experience. Most PHs use RN solids in their back up weapons and I have never heard one complain that they veer off course on animals. They continue to use them with every confidence. Also I have been requesting info on this forum from those that have seen bullets veer off course in animals for several years. So far I have info on three cases where RN steel jacketed solids have veered and two cases where FN solids have veered. Considering how many more RN solids are used than FN solids, the evidence is not certain in either direction. In other words the jury is still out on this issue.

I have used both types of bullets in .458,.468 and .475 diameter bullets on buff and elephants, all at around 2,150 fps velocity. On body shots the FN bullets have penetrated farther on head shots on elephant except the .458 diameter Woodleigh 550 grain RN solid has out penetrated them all. It was the only of the above bullets that completely penetrate an elephant skull when the bullet is placed into the top of the head on a line to exit under the jaw.

In my opinion, the use of artificial media can provide important info but we must be aware of the limitations of such testing. The final test has always been and will continue to be what the bullet does in animal tissue.

465H&H

465H&H,
You have the strangest way of disagreeing with my statements.
You restated my statement as your own, and agreed with me, and then said I was wrong!

In fact my statement was that you can rig the test by selecting the test medium to favor either a round nose or a flat nose.

The fact that you have not collected enough evidence of round nose veering from your demand for reports here:
That is just sample bias! The Luddites refuse to tell all!!

Use the one that works best overall in a variable medium, such as live game!!!
That is the FN solid!!!!
Anything else is for the Luddites!!!!!
Using FN solids: It's called Progress!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
It's called Progress!!!!!!

That's what all the velocity freaks who continually try to squeeze the next 10 fps out of a round say as well.


Nothing wrong with progress, but if the old works well, what is wrong with still using it ?

I have ample opportunity to move to Hydro's (or other bullets like FN) but don't see a need for what I do at present.

And I have used them, in direct comparison to RN and yes they do penetrate further in most cases , it's just the RN SN and FMJ have plenty of what is required already.


I very rarely recover FMJ RN's as they always seem to exit with a whirrrrrr into the distance.


Michael
How many Woodleigh 577's RN FMJ's did you fire into the test medium ?
One, two ?

It just so happens that one of the guns used for years to kill the thousands of Buffalo here was a 577 and hundreds of SN and FMJ's were fired from it. He has never mentioned that the bullets veered off course.

.

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Karl,

I am going to disagree with RIP in the friendliest way possible on several issues that he raised. First of all you can show that RN steel jacketed solids penetrate either less or more than FN mono-metal solids simply by choosing the right artificial media. None of them are directly comparable to what you will see in animal tissue. I probably have as much experience with this type of RN solid as anyone here on elephant or buffalo with the exception of some of the PHs such as Ivan Carter or Phs with a lot of culling experience. Most PHs use RN solids in their back up weapons and I have never heard one complain that they veer off course on animals. They continue to use them with every confidence. Also I have been requesting info on this forum from those that have seen bullets veer off course in animals for several years. So far I have info on three cases where RN steel jacketed solids have veered and two cases where FN solids have veered. Considering how many more RN solids are used than FN solids, the evidence is not certain in either direction. In other words the jury is still out on this issue.

I have used both types of bullets in .458,.468 and .475 diameter bullets on buff and elephants, all at around 2,150 fps velocity. On body shots the FN bullets have penetrated farther on head shots on elephant except the .458 diameter Woodleigh 550 grain RN solid has out penetrated them all. It was the only of the above bullets that completely penetrate an elephant skull when the bullet is placed into the top of the head on a line to exit under the jaw.

In my opinion, the use of artificial media can provide important info but we must be aware of the limitations of such testing. The final test has always been and will continue to be what the bullet does in animal tissue.

465H&H

The problem is the bullet pimps will try to shout you down on this, similar to the guy in S Africa. Whoever yells the loudest must be right, eh?

RIP,

You are right. I read your statement to only include straight line penetration. I missed your statement on RN penetrating farther then FN in some media. My apologies!

I do think you are on to something on the stability issue. To add to that consider the following possibility. The FN bullet tends to cut through tissue while the RN tends to push its way through. Wet pack newspaper or magazine media are consistent in form and structure through out. When the FN cuts through there is no build up of magazine material on any one side of the bullet as it is pushing a cut plug of material ahead of it thus allowing it to travel in a straight course. The RN bullet pushes through the media and there is a build up of material on one side in a random manner. This build up forms an uneven pressure forcing the bullet off course. Animal tissue is not consistent in form or matter. For instance on a side rib shot you have skin, a small amount of muscle, rib bones or muscle between the ribs, lung and/or heart tissue and the opposite as it travels through the opposite side. None of these tissues are likely to build up under one side of the RN bullet. Possibly the consistency of wet news paper although valuable in providing consistent media actually works against imitating a non consistent media such as live animal tissue.

465H&H

I know I'm the newbie, but, perhaps we should move this evolving topic over to the Terminal Bullet Performance thread, page 186?

Don't know about the .700 but I just ordered some more CEB#13 solids in .620 and .375 for the doubles that will accompany me to Africa.

I have plenty of Woodleigh RN in both calibers - softs and solids and these are probably "good enough" as so many have demonstrated.

For me, on the dangerous game I will be hunting in a few months time, "good enough" isn't good enough. I'll go with the evidence that demonstrates FN solids (CEB #13, Macifej SHARRC, RGB Copper FN Bore-Rider, RGB Crayola-Tips, etc.) are better.

quote:

Originally posted by WHITE HUNTER BLACK HEART:
I know I'm the newbie, but, perhaps we should move this evolving topic over to the Terminal Bullet Performance thread, page 186?

No need to do that. This is old hat over there, long ago settled.
That thread needs no help to keep it going, it is the Non-Terminal Terminal Ballistics thread, Ever Ready Bunny of the Big Bore Forum.

quote:

Originally posted by Will:

The problem is the bullet pimps will try to shout you down on this, similar to the guy in S Africa. Whoever yells the loudest must be right, eh?

I can only hope you are talking to me!

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

quote:

Originally posted by Will:

The problem is the bullet pimps will try to shout you down on this, similar to the guy in S Africa. Whoever yells the loudest must be right, eh?

I can only hope you are talking to me!

Michael

Michael458, Bullet Pimp

About time you changed your name on AR

.

Back on topic--assuming anyone wants to go there--what have been the results IN THE FIELD of the .700s and have they been proven to kill elephant any easier than, say, a .375 H&H or a .458?

quote:

Originally posted by Will:

The problem is the bullet pimps will try to shout you down on this, similar to the guy in S Africa. Whoever yells the loudest must be right, eh?

Well, then...

Interesting what a 700 cal, 1050 gr version of
Michael's good turned FN solids would do in my 700
at about 3 grand in ele/rhino/etc... Ed

quote:

Originally posted by 500N:

quote:

Originally posted by Will:

The problem is the bullet pimps will try to shout you down on this, similar to the guy in S Africa. Whoever yells the loudest must be right, eh?

Michael458, Bullet Pimp

About time you changed your name on AR

.

You know something, that "book peddling" "elephant leather wallet peddler" may have actually in a drunken stupor got something right for a change, now that I reflect upon it proper! With the exception of the Yelling the loudest part, I just don't have the voice for yelling, nor the inclination. Choice of words and description a little vulgar, but what would one expect?

Yes, I suppose it is very possible that I have narrowed my search for a better bullet down to the point that without doubt in my mind I have found the best there is. They prove it over and over, and of course it starts in the artificial test medium. But it proves out in the field as well.
From caliber to caliber, weight to weight, the results are the same, deep straight line penetration, hit much harder up front transferring more trauma and destruction of medium, or tissue, and do it time after time after time. Regardless of flesh or medium.

This discussion went south, and it's truly MY FAULT---about as much as I can yell. I without "malice" or "intent" posted a ugly photo of a Woodleigh RN performing poorly in the test medium as compared to another bullet, the far superior BBW#13 Profile. It was not intentional that I offend the "Woodleigh Cult", had I had another example of a round nose performing poorly I surely would have posted it as well. However, it was NOT my intention to draw attention to the poorly performing RN bullet, but my intention to show the "Best of Show", but none the less, the attention went to how poor the RN performed, not how good the proper designed solid performed!

And, by the way, "Book Peddler" I do not YELL at my friend 465HH and my friend Nigel, 500N. Both of which I have private conversations with frequently, and we have all discussed this many many times over the last few years, both in private correspondence as well as direct conversation. I consider both of these fine gentleman Friends, and extremely valuable sources of information. Both have a great deal of field experience, and a passion for doing what they believe is right. Point of fact is that 465HH and I work hard together on many such things to be able to not only understand what is going on with things beyond your understanding, but to also be able to share it with those who need this information. To suggest anything as "Rude" as a "yell down" is plainly just ignorance on your part.

As for the reference to a chap in S Africa, sorry Book Peddler, not in the bullet business myself. You see the definition of pimp below;

quote:

pimp |pimp|
noun
a man who controls prostitutes and arranges clients for them, taking part of their earnings in return.

Well I won't tell a lie, I have thought about such a business venture probably all my adult male life, however I was smart enough to never enter such a business on the basis that there is no way I could ever make a profit at it! You see, I think I might, or at least in my youth would have indulged far too much in the pleasure part of the business to have ever made any actual money at it! Therefore, I decided that was not such a good idea.

Very much the same as the thought of being in the bullet business actually, you see, I would for sure shoot up my stock, give it away, and it would be a huge loss, and I would be on the streets trying to peddle books or some such nonsense! So therefore, I keep my actual business ventures into other areas. You might say I have a sharp separation of "Business and Pleasure". So I am neither in the pimping business nor the bullet business for the part of taking some of the profits! My profits would go up in smoke so to speak.

Bullet pimping in the sense of introducing the very best bullets out there for use of my friends, associates, and the folks that need, desire, or wish to do better in the field, then absolutely I would be defined as a "bullet pimp". And although I am sure your intentions were to be nasty, I am sure they are also born from ignorance as well. Although not entirely off base in the sense described here. I like bullets too, so I suppose I could be a "Bullet Slut" as well!

Now this little conversation has taken a slant in the other direction from intentions, and again, my apology it is my fault by posted that test comparison photo of a fmj rn woodleigh solid. That was surely a mistake on my part, and has once again offended those who defend such. No offense intended, actually never even thought about that, I wanted to show the progress made in the Ultra Bores and their increased effectiveness, which is now also being proven in the field, beyond the test work. I think Sam's PH in Africa is enjoying very much his new found success in his 577 Nitro Ultra Bore with some of the new bullets that Sam has been giving him. He is asking for more of them, proof in and of itself I think.

Now do not forget either, that it has been determined, and proven from great deal of study over the years that a solid tested in my test medium here will penetrate on average 35% more in animal tissue, since in most cases it is less dense than the test medium. Softs, expanding and NonCons will be from 75%-80% to 100% deeper penetration on animal tissue than in this test medium. So if your favorite Woodleigh is penetrating 20 inches or 25 inches before going off course, then you can add another 35% to that as a rule of thumb, and you can see it is enough to do the job in most cases. But that is not the point, the point of the matter is to look at how good the other bullets do. To deny this point is actually, Missing the Point all together. It is not the point to prove how poor the round nose designs perform, it is the point to prove how well some other designs perform!

RN good enough? In most cases yes. Potential to fail? I think so, and they have regardless of what some will say. Choices? Of course there are choices, and please, everyone is free to choose the bullet of their preference, my intentions are to present data so intelligent folks can make intelligent choices. Other than that, I have no vested interest. My interest lie with my own successful missions in the field and I want the best bullet I can get to assist me in that venture. You must choose what you think will be the best for you!

Bullet Pimp? Yes I suppose so--Yelling, well let me try it out CUTTING EDGE BULLETS---NORTH FORK
whew, about as loud as I can scream! Now there we go, that's a bit better, and it frees you up to go insult someone else, eh?

Now moving on to far more important things!

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by hubel458:
Interesting what a 700 cal, 1050 gr version of
Michael's good turned EN solids would do in my 700
at about 3 grand in ele/rhino/etc... Ed

Ed

Well I think you might have a point there! Personally I would think that one of those just might turn something heavy inside out. Skinners would love you, skin would be totally knocked off! One might need to be very careful however, especially if the thought of any recovery of trophies were considered. Ever see a prairie dog explode from a high velocity 223 bullet? I am sorta having the same visions here, only it's bigger, much bigger!