No defense needed as that is not quite the way it happened. The HP range was the first of the turned bullets, from 1993 to 1996. In 1996 I started development of the drive band FN and the first bullets into the field for testing were two .375s in 270gr and 300gr, two 9.3s in 270gr and 300gr (300gr - what was I thinking?), two .416s in 380gr and 410gr and two .458s in 450gr and 500gr. Once the evaluation of those were under way, I did a 145gr RN which failed miserably and proved a point. Then came the 145gr and 180gr FNs in 7.62/.308. The 145gr FN was used for culling ele from a chopper. Development and evaluation took almost a year, with the first FN bullets available for sale in November 1997. Development of the HV range started about 6 months after the FNs.

These bullets were recovered from elephant. Comparison with the unfired bullet on the right shows the set back of the nose. 500grains also posted pictures of his testing. As we experienced, he also found that nicks and dents on the nose did not affect performance in any way.

FNs frequently shoot through on ele, buff rhino and so on. From the recovered bullets, and the effect of those that were not recovered, on the shot game, we drew several conclusions.

A. A solid that deforms to a cylinder is better than one which does not. It is more likely to track straight and wound channel volume increases. It is less likely to break unacceptably on an ele molar for example.
B. Shorter than "traditional" lengths work better. The slight increase in speed more than offsets the reduction in weight. penetration depth was unaffected by the slight reduction in weight.
C. Tracking straight in the animal and the larger wound channel volume was found to be of more value than an extra 5" of penetration depth.

To have arrived at these conclusions, it follows that several alloys and different configurations were tried. Today, ten years and a very large pile of bullets later, we see nothing that makes us want to change the basic geometric configuration of the FN design or the material we chose then. We have been making small improvements that go to accuracy, gas handling, regulation in doubles and such. We have never made changes that will make load developments up to that point obsolete.

Our biggest obstacle in the market has been that of distance and delivery and that is being solved on an ongoing basis. The latest addition to our network of outlets is in South America (The Mercosur)

So, if it is extreme penetration you want, more than what is required for shooting clear through an ele, use the hardest projectile you can find that is designed to do just that. If the object is to kill loads of sand, building material and lumber, use anything you want because the result is a subject for discussion and pretty pictures only. If it is performance on game you want, use a bullet designed for the application.

Gerard:

This I absolutely agree with, it's sound ballisitcs science !

It raises interesting points into others "testing" and theories:

1. I know 500 gr shot a number of PAC elephant with your bullets: and your posted view, correct I must add opposes what 500 gr put to print about the mechanims of action of the FN bullet and more importantly the issue of wound channel size and FN's when compared to non FN bullets.

The role of in target stability based on projectile geometry soundly adhered to and applied with the correct role of wound volume relative to penetration depth.

2. This expose of timeline of production and availability of the GS bullets also expose some questions in my mind as to the actual use and experience claimed by some of the doyans of DG hunting right here on AR specifically as to the actual use of your bullets in DG hunting.

Of the most revered posters here on AR claim to have shot all kinds of game with all kinds of calibers and rifles over the years , advocating for the use of your product when in fact for the most since 2000 at least and about 2 years before they were, for the most sitting behind a computer screen in the USA and not in the hunting fields of Africa...... the archive of AR actually is able to date who was where and when

Whilst I have no problem with the endorcing of your product based on expereince I have often wondered at how some here can shoot all of the game they have claimed and at always wonderous velocities when in fact the bullets were not even available yet and secondly they were living and working in the USA and at most got out for one yearly, or two yearly, two or three week Safari?

As to the use of solid brass or brass monometals, I am not so sure yet? There are too many unanswered questions for me.

For instance: RWS and other German commercial bullet makers have used Brass and Tombak Jackets for years and they all coat the brass and tombak jackets with Nickel to improve on bore wear? Now whilst RIP may have no problem in rebarreling guns it does detract from the value of the guns that I shoot. Rebarreling an old Mauser is not on.... well not in my book!

And as the frangibility, again companies like RWS who make special police frangible bullets ( to avoid injury to bystanders) use brass, in combination specifically for this purpose ?

What did I do?

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Gerard,
It is a daunting task to match land and groove diameters of all barrels to your drive-band bullets, as precisely as you want. At some point if accuracy is there with a slightly loose or slightly tight bullet in one or both dimensions, what is the purpose? Better gas seal and better barrel life?

Do you propose to do custom fitting of your bullets to any barrel? +/- 2.5 microns?

Gerard,

Just a question to clarify:

If the bullet is made to spec and the barrel is made to spec, how is it possible to be that much adrift, given the tolerances that CIP allow? It seams that RIP has opened up a hornest nest here with his reference of ... "It is a daunting task to match land and groove diameters of all barrels to your drive-band bullets ..."

The GSC bullet is precision lathe-turned, so I would appreciate an explanation of the causes and implications (difficulty or ease of engraving, gas seal, throat erosion, accuracy, etc)

Warrior

All barrels are not the same diameter, you should know that. I have several custom 30 Cal barrels and some are .308, some are .3075, etc.

jwp475:

I do know that barrels can differ, but how severe is the problem really in terms of Gerard's bullets? In other words, what tolerance differences can we expect? 2.5 microns?

To customise bullets for every barrel out there is not an option for bullets that are made to spec in a standardized production run. Do you then agree that the design of the drive band bullet is at odds with barrel dimentions out there? And as such, should other type of bullets then be preffered that is not so finicky?

Or is this whole thing just a flash in the pan?

Warrior

We have found solutions that work well with the entire spectrum of CIP and SAAMI specifications, tolerances included. If a barrel is out of spec, well, you have lost before you have started. The up side is - If we know what the out of spec dimension is and how much, we adjust for the tolerance, and supply the right bullet.

Here is the part that I do not understand about Warrior. He disappears for 10 days and when he comes back, the first thing he does is jump in with THE AGENDA.

quote:

how severe is the problem really in terms of Gerard's bullets?

Not "Is there a problem?" The problem is established and real in his mind, it is just a matter of how severe it is.

quote:

Do you then agree that the design of the drive band bullet is at odds with barrel dimentions out there? And as such, should other type of bullets then be preffered that is not so finicky?

He has decided that GSC bullets are at odds with the rifles of the world and seeks agreement. Also GSC bullets are finicky and other bullets that are not finicky should be preferred. He has decided and the facts are fabricated from thin air.

Chris, you are a piece of work. Read Chris Atkinsons comment (on the Accuracy Page of our site) about how easy his load development was. This is repeated often and most reloaders find accuracy and speed with relative ease. GSC bullets are often described as less fussy than most others that have been tried, by those who have used them. Yet you seek problems where there are none.
Why don't you crawl back from where you came. You are tiresome in your nagging, worse than the worst fishwife ever in existence. Replace with: Don't you have someone else to harass with your imaginary problems?

GS Custom bullets remain my first choice solids.

Gerard:



Regarding this 0.140 MOA 3-shot group shot with your .416/380-grain FN from my Ruger RSM-Rigby: That was from July 2001, not January 2007. Maybe it was not until January 2007 that your computer person finally added that pic after my repeated begging to be included in the parade of tiny groups and high velocity with your bullets?

I just want to be sure there are no inaccuracies in the accuracies depicted there.
I'll be checking to make sure you correct that.

Original Kentucky Target:


I heard about your bullets here at ar.com and I was smart enough to stop load development right there: It was the first three shots I fired with your bullets.

I knew that 105 grains of H4831 was touted by Oom "Janie" Buhmiller who gave the recipe to Jack O'Connor for his .416 Rigby.

I also knew that the .416 Rigby rifle&cartridge would handle any 400-grain bullet with that load and deliver over 2400 fps at low pressure with excellent accuracy. It was The Lore.

I simply loaded a half dozen different makes of bullets with that powder charge.

Your bullet gave 2509 fps (2507, 2512, 2507) and 0.140 MOA with the first 3 shots. A decisive winner.

Least work for best load I have ever experienced. I loaded more and zeroed the rifle dead-on at 100 yards.

A week later one sighting-in shot in Botswana was dead on and passed through two rather large umbrella thorn trees, like a laser, and started a mining operation in the Tuli Block.

A week after that, in the Okavango, one more shot passed through the heart of a cape buffalo, one-shot killer, and that bullet is probably still skipping around the swamps there: Late July 2001.



I guess that make of bullet is within 2.5 microns of groove and land diameters in my rifle, with 1:14" TWIST.

Your .510/570-grainFN at 2405 fps from my .510/460 Weatherby Improved Jenkins and Berry passed through 8 feet of bison bull (tushie to tonsils) and took it down "dead right there." The .510 JAB is really just a 500 A-Square. It was loaded with 110 grains of RL-15, 23" barrel of 1:10 TWIST.

Why can I not get you to include a picture of that dead bison with the other testimonials on your website?

Is it because I shot it first with a Barnes XLC 570-grainer and it ran off, requiring the Texas Coup De Grace from your bullet?

Broadside-chest-Smurfing-Barnes pollution of the live bison does not invalidate the recto-tonsillo-fistulotomy by your bullet. Egad! 8 feet!

If only you had been making .510/570-grain HV's, I would never have been compelled to fool with the .509-caliber Barnes barrel-rattlers.

Please explain this omission also.

If you should relent on the bison perforation testimonial, could you crop down one of these?

Alf and RIP,

I am actually not too surprised the brass HP that blew off petals had similar penetration as the copper HP that retained some.

If you calculate the frontal area of the brass bullet (or any bullet) that turns over 180 degrees, it has a surprisingly lot of FA.

My first 375 was a 1-14 Whitworth and the 300 grain FMJ FN had similar penetration as a 300 grain Nosler soft point! (In both american bison and 5 gallon water cans).

This was back in 1978.

Gerard, thanks for the history lesson. I remember very vividly when you first began to post here photos of game taken with your FN small bores from culling operations. I assumed, wrongly, that is where you began.

Andy

Andy

RIP,

quote:

Regarding this 0.140 MOA 3-shot group shot with your .416/380-grain FN from my Ruger RSM-Rigby: That was from July 2001, not January 2007.

I know how this happened. The last time you nagged us about this was in January this year. The date on the target in the bottom left corner is 7/14/01. In South Africa, that would mean 2007, the 14th month, the first day. Go figure.

quote:

Why can I not get you to include a picture of that dead bison with the other testimonials on your website?

I am unable to explain that, even if you beat me with a stick. We have the photo (top one) cropped and all, I checked the file. I will suitably bring this omission to the IT person's attention with a cat o' nine tails. This may cause some upset as it is Elmarie, my better half.

Gerard,
Thanks for the timely response. I will be watching your dead animal gallery for general mayhem, and the accuracy gallery for accuracy of dates.

http://www.gsgroup.co.za/accuracy.html

Several quotes and questions from Alf,

"A solid that deforms to a cylinder is better than one which does not. It is more likely to track straight and wound channel volume increases. It is less likely to break unacceptably on an ele molar for example."

Dan might want to comment here since he tried a 300 grain cylindrical wadcutter on elephant vs a FN. And yes, you have created a monster!

quote:

As to the use of solid brass or brass monometals, I am not so sure yet? There are too many unanswered questions for me.

A Square, TCCI, PMP, and Barnes solids all use some form of brass and have been and are available now for years, even decades.

Copper solids are more recent but include GS and for a few years, the excellent North Fork (pictured 9.3 mm to .470).



Many of us, myself included, have used both brass and copper on elephant.



I think we are all making a mountain out of a mole hill.

If in doubt, read Dan's articles.

I" have often wondered at how some here can shoot all of the game they have claimed and at always wonderous velocities when in fact the bullets were not even available yet and secondly they were living and working in the USA and at most got out for one yearly, or two yearly, two or three week Safari?"

Alf, have you shot any elephant with monometals? The PMP maybe? Why still in doubt?

Why dont we take a poll of those who have used monometal solids, brass or copper, to kill elephant?

I doubt we will find many if any failures.

Andy

quote:

Originally posted by Andy:
Alf and RIP,

I am actually not too surprised the brass HP that blew off petals had similar penetration as the copper HP that retained some.

If you calculate the frontal area of the brass bullet (or any bullet) that turns over 180 degrees, it has a surprisingly lot of FA.

Andy

Andy,
My impression is that Alf was implying the unrealism of my medium because he would expect the 180-degree flip of the brass S&H VeloHEX to generate so much resistance that it should not have penetrated as well.

Granted the 5-gallon waterbucket train was not meant to assess penetration, but just the expansion/disintegration "dynamics" of the two bullets, brass hollowpoint versus copper hollowpoint.

The IWBB medium (waterboarding) is much closer to realism, i.e. game simulant.

The expanding copper HV becomes nose heavy and is dart stabilized. Retained weight increases the momentum. Frontal diameter increases resistance.

The flipped-over brass bullet is shoulder-stabilized, has less resistance due to lesser frontal area, but less momentum due to the lost weight from the hexagonal explosion of nose shards ... but overall enough to go as far as the GSC: bottom of third bucket.

The hexagonal brass hollowpoint on the S&H VeloHEX is cavernously wide, and scored in six stress risers by the hexagon.

If the GSC copper hollowpoint was similarly wide and hexagonal-scored, it would probably fragment too.

As the GSC is, narrow hollowpoint and only 3 scorings inside for 3 petals, it is obviously about as good a design for that copper alloy as possible.

As for elephant hunter polling, please feel free to highjack this thread.
I will stick with buffalo for now:

Cape buffalo: Sinful caffer
Tatanka: Bison bison
Water buffalo: Bubalus bubalis
Iron Water Board Buffalo: Ferrous hydrotimberis

quote:

Originally posted by .366torque:

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

Low Wall,
Yes, Rippalloy is great!
My only problem with the .396/410-grain LBT LFN is that I have to use .416-caliber gas checks on them and cannot get them caliber specific unless I get them special made, or make my own. Not bad accuracy though. I am shooting for accuracy next trial with these .416-caliber gas checks sized down to .396.

Regarding Rippalloy, you can heat treat it to harder than Linotype, just like plain wheel weights, but it will pour prettier and more precisely. The water dropped result looks to be fine for general purpose at 1400 fps to 2200 fps, and BHN of about 15. The recipe:

12 pounds of clip-on wheel weight ingots
1/2 pound of 95/5 (Sn/Sb) solder
1/2 pound of chilled lead no. 7-1/2
2 ounces of Buffalo Trace: not for use as flux!!!

RIP how about babbitt?


From the site:

quote:

Babbitt alloys offer an almost unsurpassed combination of compatibility, conformability, and embed ability. They easily adapt their shapes to conform to the bearing shaft and will hold a lubricant film. Foreign matter not carried away by the lubrication is embedded below the surface and rendered harmless. These characteristics are due to babbitt's hard/soft composition. High-tin babbitt alloys, for example, consist of a relatively soft, solid matrix of tin in which are distributed hard copper-tin needles and tin-antimony cuboids. This provides for "excellent run-in" which means the bearing will absorb a lubricant on the surface and hold the lubricant film. Even under severe operating conditions, where high loads, fatigue problems, or high temperature dictate the use of other stronger materials, babbits are often employed as a thin surface coating to obtain the advantage of their good rubbing characteristics.

Especially:

quote:

Genuine XXXX Nickel Babbitt Alloy
XXXX Nickel Babbitt Alloy is the result of over sixty years constant effort to produce the best bearing alloy, regardless of cost. Today it stands supreme in the field of high-grade bearing metals. It is made only of carefully selected virgin materials and each element is subjected to scientific treatment during the alloying process.

XXXX Nickel Babbitt lasts longer under severe service, because,

It holds the oil film
It pours freely and fills all liner crevices
It's anti-frictional
It cannot cut the shaft
It resists high temperatures
It has high thermal conductivity

.366torque,
I have heard of babbitt.
The tin-based babbitts and lead-based babbitts are many and various bearing alloys. Nickel babbitt falls in the tin-based category, has only a fractional percentage of lead, but maybe 3 or 4% copper (a mess for a casting impurity) and mostly tin then antimony and arsenic.
It may weigh only 60% of a similar volume of lead. No good, too light, even if it is strong and "lubricious."

The lead babbitts are also many and of the same general composition as linotype, in some of the alloys nearly identical to linotype. No copper. That would be like linotype. I think Rippalloy would be better.

Rip...
Good luck on trying to fit .416 gas checks centered on your .395 cast bullets...I have had no problem sizing down .375 lubed and checked cast bullets to .359 for a 35 Whelen but I started out with the check on the bullet...I size down in two steps using push thru dies .369 (for my 9.3) and then .359....I read where Verl Smith thinks shot buffer under a gas check designed bullet sans gas check may work well...see relpy #5 in link below...There is a possibility of a do it yourself check making tool coming on the market soon and I have seen pictures/drawings of modifying sizing dies to install gas checks on both plain base and gas check designed bullets which would be the best way to go I would think..
Your 400/.395NE project inspired me to try my 40-90SS last week for the first time...What a hoot!! Just a mild load of smokeless, 10grs. of dacron packed and a 420gr annealed WW boolit around 1400fps...My vel. goal is around 1700fps with that boolit...The cresent butt plate has to go however..
Have Fun!
http://www.go2gbo.com/forums/index.php/topic,143783.0.html

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:

Drat! The work 'puter is blocking this image. I will have to look for it later.

Low Wall,
Thanks for the tip on the sizing of the gas checks stepwize. I have been doing it straight from .416 to .396 but have an array of .405, .400, .398, .397, .396 to throw an extra step or two in there.

Your 40/90SS:
How long is the brass case on your version?

Is that a Sharps 1874, Winchester Low Wall, High Wall, Peabody Martini, Ballard, reproduction or original or what?

Do you use a paper patched .395 cast lead bullet?

Any information on the bore and groove diameters of your barrel and the bullets you use in it would be appreciated.

Gerard,

It is amazing how you can twist and contort words. If you paid attention, you would have noticed that I merely asked questions, questions to those that made certain statements to further clarify. You have very selectively ignored my last question, as it did not suit your AGENDA to blast me, and I now repeat ... "Or is this whole thing just a flash in the pan?"

In fact I agree with you that if one starts out with an "out of spec" barrel, then the bullet cannot be blamed. The problem I perceive is your paranoia that does not want to leave you.

So Gerard with permission, you may now also now crawl back to where you come from, as you seem unwilling to answer questions in a civil way.

Warrior

What is the Afrikaans word for "pecker" as in "woodpecker" or "peckerhead?"

Is it "bekker" as in "Chris Bekkerhead?"

Chris "The Bek" Bekker.

"Bek" is "beak" in Afrikaans, as in bird beak?

I am sure Gerard feels like he is being pecked at by a peckerhead.

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:

Very cool, boom stick, thanks!

Figured it would be a great t shirt for you to wear during these tests

RIP,

You made the the following points about GSC ... "It is a daunting task to match land and groove diameters of all barrels to your drive-band bullets, as precisely as you want. At some point if accuracy is there with a slightly loose or slightly tight bullet in one or both dimensions, what is the purpose? Better gas seal and better barrel life? Do you propose to do custom fitting of your bullets to any barrel? +/- 2.5 microns? "

I have merely asked how serious this is in the light of your above statements/observations.
You are called to clarify, before starting a name calling match. You seem to indicate that the problem is widespread as you refer to the drive band design in general relative to all barrels. Perhaps you want to retract or clarify so we have no misunderstanding.

The real issue at the centre point here is not when one starts out with an "out of spec" barrel, but rather with an "in spec" barrel given the allowed tolerances of CIP & SAAMI. Is the drive band design of GSC such that it caters for it, or is such an ideal position of a perfect match not possible due to the precision of the GSC bullet in relation to "tight" and "loose" barrels, but still within allowed tolerances of industry standards?

Warrior

Mac's response/opinion was:

"The form makes a lot of assumptions as far as the efficacy of the design. Bore vs Groove vs shank vs band diameters. If any of the relationships are out of range then performance will degrade. Even if GS is able to hold very tight and consistant tolerance is production they have no control over the variability of all the different platforms [barrels]. I'd be most concerned with an over bore spec barrel and degraded coaxial alignment of the bullet. IE - if the driving bands are very light in profile and very soft in material they don't provide the the degree of geometric stability of other designs."

Then there was the question of crimping in big bore calibers that seemed to be more finicky or an issue than with other designs. All these questions were not raised by me. However it just called for a simple answer by Gerard. What I have seen mostly (on the GSC website), is that most bullets are in fact accurate in various rifles/barrels. Hence my question ... is it only a flash in the pan?

Sharing info from different sources are what this forum is all about.

Warrior

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:

quote:

Originally posted by boom stick:

Drat! The work 'puter is blocking this image. I will have to look for it later.

Low Wall,
Thanks for the tip on the sizing of the gas checks stepwize. I have been doing it straight from .416 to .396 but have an array of .405, .400, .398, .397, .396 to throw an extra step or two in there.

Your 40/90SS:
How long is the brass case on your version?

Is that a Sharps 1874, Winchester Low Wall, High Wall, Peabody Martini, Ballard, reproduction or original or what?

Do you use a paper patched .395 cast lead bullet?

Any information on the bore and groove diameters of your barrel and the bullets you use in it would be appreciated.

Rip...
My rifle is a CSharps 1875 model that I bought second hand several years ago..The brass is 3.25" Bertram Brass...It says 405 Base 3 1/4 on the box....I just did a impact slug of the throat and bore this afternoon and was surprized to find that it was .410" for the groove and .401 for the bore...I just figured it was .408 because a .410 Lyman sizer came with the rifle...but thinking as I post this since this is a BPCR the previous owner would most likely loaded soft boolits and let the black powder kick the boolit up to groove dia....the throat is .412" and it looks the chamber has about 1 thou room to release a .412" boolit...Three NEI molds came with the rifle and the one I am using is mold #215A .410-415-PB...
http://www.neihandtools.com/catalog/index.html
I was using one John Campbells loads from his article in HANDLOADER #180 just to get the rifle sighted in and get an idea how it handled...Not bad as the last 3 rounds went in just under a inch at 60 meters or so..the boolits were seconds from the first casting session with this mold and Lee Liq. Alox X2 was used for lube...
The CSharps is said to be as strong as the Ruger #1 so I think my cap on vel. is going to be the brass life...the price tag on the box of unused brass I have says $69.95
This was the first time I ever shot a "Forty" ...Playing with this CSharp Buffalo Varmit Rifle (it weighs 11 1/4#'s) will tell me if I should get a Lwt. Stalking Rifle like your Elvira... (she excites me )

BTW that is one nice looking Bison you shot...For people to get a perspective on its size just look at its head size compared to Rips torso.....Then look at the size of the Cape buffalos head...I have always been in awe of the Bison and the people whom they provided for...

Warrior/Truvelloshooter/Chris,

quote:

10 July you post:
If you paid attention, you would have noticed that I merely asked questions

Questions that have been answered but you are too wrapped up in your agenda to notice. Let me illustrate:

RIP asked: ""It is a daunting task to match land and groove diameters of all barrels to your drive-band bullets ..." You added Jay's observation: "if the driving bands are very light in profile and very soft in material they don't provide the the degree of geometric stability of other designs."

To which I answered: "We have found solutions that work well with the entire spectrum of CIP and SAAMI specifications, tolerances included." With a link to illustrate the kind of accuracy experienced with GSC bullets.

Today you ask a question about crimping.

quote:

Then there was the question of crimping in big bore calibers that seemed to be more finicky or an issue than with other designs.

Five days ago I answered the question with:

quote:

Crimping often reduces neck tension even further. With drive bands, neck tension is better than that of a smooth sided bullet. The brass springs back in between the drive bands when the bullet is seated, creating a small crimp behind each drive band. If neck tension is low with a drive band bullet, in fact with any bullet, spin the sizer button down, it is too large. There are applications where a crimping groove is supplied on FN bullets. All it takes is to talk to us about what you want.

So, if YOU paid attention you would have noticed that these questions have already been answered. What did you think: If you asked them again, the answer will change??


You should make up your mind what it is that you are trying to find imaginary fault with. On one hand you are fretting about Jay who says: "I'd be most concerned with an over bore spec barrel and degraded coaxial alignment of the bullet." On the other hand you agree:

quote:

In fact I agree with you that if one starts out with an "out of spec" barrel, then the bullet cannot be blamed.

quote:

you seem unwilling to answer questions in a civil way.

What do you expect when you ask questions that were asked and answered already? The bottom line is that you can take your allegations of "finicky" and shove it.

quote:

Chris "The Bek" Bekker.

Gerard,
A little birdie told me that one: "The Bek"

I can read and understand English, which must not be the first language of "The Bek."

Low Wall,
Is that a genuine Sharps 1875 or a modern reproduction?

A modern one would likely be stronger, an antique one more interesting to have the barrel specs on.

TWIST???

That bison is just an average mature bull only 4 or 5 years old. Weighed 1832 lbs after bleeding out, weighed on a grain scale, truck scale.

They are magnificent animals and even this one was very tasty.

They are a religious experience for sure, as you seem to understand.

quote:

quote:
In fact I agree with you that if one starts out with an "out of spec" barrel, then the bullet cannot be blamed.

Gerard,

You missed the essence of what I was trying to get across to you. Here it is again ...

"The real issue at the centre point here is not when one starts out with an "out of spec" barrel, but rather with an "in spec" barrel given the allowed tolerances of CIP & SAAMI. Is the drive band design of GSC such that it caters for it, or is such an ideal position of a perfect match not possible due to the precision of the GSC bullet in relation to "tight" and "loose" barrels, but still within allowed tolerances of industry standards?

The only vague answer we got so far, and still covered in a cloud of darkness, was .... "We have found solutions that work well with the entire spectrum of CIP and SAAMI specifications, tolerances included."

Where do you pitch the measurements ... at maximum, at minimum or at mid-point. What is the answer?
A simple answer will put this matter to rest, much better than a cloud of smoke!

THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK ON YOUR BULLET, BUT TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE DESIGN OF YOU BULLET AND HOW IT ACTUALLY WORKS AND MATCHES UP TO BARREL SPECS THAT ARE WITHIN THE STANDARD. I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY THAT WOULD-BE USERS OF YOUR BULLET WOULD BE MOST CURIOUS TO HEAR YOUR ANSWER.



Warrior

quote:

"It is a daunting task to match land and groove diameters of all barrels to your drive-band bullets, as precisely as you want.

RIP,

You are indeed the one with the "bek" as you were the one that spilled the beans (I mean opened your "bek") when you said .... ""It is a daunting task to match land and groove diameters of all barrels to your drive-band bullets, as precisely as you want."



Warrior

Bek = snout or mouth of animal, or beak of bird, in Afrikaans.

Bekker = mouther

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Low Wall,
Is that a genuine Sharps 1875 or a modern reproduction?

A modern one would likely be stronger, an antique one more interesting to have the barrel specs on.

TWIST???

That bison is just an average mature bull only 4 or 5 years old. Weighed 1832 lbs after bleeding out, weighed on a grain scale, truck scale.

They are magnificent animals and even this one was very tasty.

They are a religious experience for sure, as you seem to understand.

My 1875 Sharps is a modern reproduction made by CSharps in Big Timber Mont. http://www.csharpsarms.com/1875_rifle.php
If the link opens to the right page mine looks alot like the one in the center...
The 1875 Sharps (original) never got past the prototype stage and from what I read years ago only five were ever made...
The twist rate is 1:18 which doesn't compute as my 420gr. boolit is 1.369" long and at 1350fps according to the twist calulator should require 1:15.8 twist...ie. for this boolit to stabilize in a 1:18 twist it should be need a muzzle vel. of 1750fps...oh well it shoots fine so far
Paper Patching...forgot to answer that question...short answer is yes, I plan to try that also....401 sizer from Lee, two wraps of Vellem,lube,run through a .412 sizer, shoot..

Warrior, Truvelloshooter, Chris Bek,

quote:

Where do you pitch the measurements ... at maximum, at minimum or at mid-point. What is the answer?
A simple answer will put this matter to rest, much better than a cloud of smoke!

Simple answer: None of the above.

As I said to Jay (no doubt you missed it, just like you miss most salient points): "As far as showing all and sundry the exact nature of research that was done in product development, what company will do that? You should get a grip on reality. I will share much of what I have learned and experienced to a point, but I will also protect that which is proprietory."

Suffice to say that load development and accuracy comes easy with GSC bullets, if you rifle is in spec. We have also seen extended barrel life, easier cleaning, longer shot strings without loss of accuracy and cooler running barrels. If your barrel is out of spec and rebarreling is not an option, we have solutions for that as well. Solutions that very few other manufacturers offer.

When RIP said "It is a daunting task to match land and groove diameters of all barrels to your drive-band bullets, as precisely as you want", I took that as a compliment. You see it as spilling the beans and it shows without doubt where you and your perspective comes from.

So, take your imaginary problems and take a hike. Go and harass a manufacturer who makes under size bullets, you might actually do something useful then.

Gerard,

Thanks for your answer Gerard, even though we did not get to the bottom of the fix or as you call it the solution. The observations made with reference to your bullets actually came from other posters and they are not my "imaginary problems" as you accused me of. We were just trying to get a handle on dimentional differences between shank, driving band and barrel specs. All I can conclude is that by design we will have dimentional discrepancies in practise as barrels do differ.

"As a matter of interest, RIP's barrel is over size and, as soon as Prof242 can let us have some pictures of recovered bullets, I will decide whether to change one or both the diameters of the 395 bullet range we make." This position obviously exist with many other barrels as well. However it has been proven that even up to 1.5 thou undersize bullets seldom if ever affect accuracy at pratical hunting ranges. The Impala and Rhino bullets are examples of this condition. However it is commendable that you can custom make bullets to cater for RIP's over-sized barrrel of 2.5 microns.

On the other side of the spectrum, the shank of your bullet can be engraved on tighter barrels or the bullet being over-sized, of which we have seen examples posted here on AR. I think this is what RIP meant when he said it was a daunting task to match your design to all the barrels out there, but you see it as a compliment - always another spin on things. The reality is that dimentional differences in matching bullets to barrels perfectly abound in practise, and perhaps more so with the drive band design.



Warrior

Warrior wrote:

quote:

On the other side of the spectrum, the shank of your bullet can be engraved on tighter barrels or the bullet being over-sized, of which have seen examples posted here on AR. I think this is what RIP meant when he said it was a daunting task to match your design to all the barrels out there, but you see it as a compliment - always another spin on things. The reality is that dimentional differences in matching bullets to barrels perfectly abound in practise, and perhaps more so with the drive band design.

Why don't you simply accept what Gerard said here:

quote:

"We have found solutions that work well with the entire spectrum of CIP and SAAMI specifications, tolerances included."

The following two pictures of a 375 265gr GSCHV bullet, recovered from a 62" horn length Kudu bull, shot by a PH with his favourite rifle last year, tell you that even rifles with very, very odd barrels shoot perfectly with GSC drive band bullets.

First picture -

shows that the drive bands were moved backwards into the open spaces between them very lightly by the grooves on one side of the bullet.

Second picture -
, being the opposite side of the same bullet, clearly shows that the grooves cut much deeper into the bullet.

That again spells out that this rifle, owned by a PH and shooting extremely accurate with GSCHV 265gr bullets, actually has an oval shaped barrel on the inside

Yet, the rifle shoots perfectly and very accurately with GSC drive band bullets.

What more can one say other than that Gerard's reply was 100% correct!

Wow! That is odd. The oval bore spirals with the rifling, sort of like "compound rifling." Even when the lands finally get worn away and it becomes a smoothbore, it may shoot well with the GSC bullets, as long as it retains the oval spiral "rifling," eh?

If there is also wear in the bottoms of the grooves enlarging the bore, say 100,000 rounds from now, then GSC may have to make a larger bullet for it.

Sorry no IWBB this weekend. I had to pick up a 300 Lapua Mag Mudflap Girl across state lines and bring her home. Bullet casting party with my brother tomorrow. Birthday party for my 73 year-old mother too. I hope she and my wife can tolerate all the mudflap girls hanging around.

Texas Coup De Grace's on the IWBB to follow, later.

quote:

... that even rifles with very, very odd barrels shoot perfectly with GSC drive band bullets.

Jagter,

We can can safely deduct from the bullet that killed the kudu, that its angle of attack was within the limits of still performing terminally as expected.

The barrel is one of the most critical components in the firing platform, and as such, odd barrels (uneven in diameter and groove, oval, etc.) are not known for their accuracy. Whilst we do not have the results (repeatable grouping at distance) to evaluate the accuracy of the bullet in question, we do know that an odd barrel is not conducive to accuracy, as the bullet's centre of form will be changed on exit, and a yaw will be induced. A bullet can be the most precision made lathe-turned bullet, but once its form has been altered, it does not have the same properties anymore.

For a bullet to overcome serious deformities of a barrel, we need a "silver" bullet. Once we have a silver bullet we can reduce the barrel to a non-critical component.

Warrior

Warrior wrote:

quote:

We can can safely deduct from the bullet that killed the kudu, that its angle of attack (should be incidence!!! ) was within the limits of still performing terminally as expected.

Who said it wasn't?

Warrior also wrote:

quote:

The barrel is one of the most critical components in the firing platform, and as such, odd barrels (uneven in diameter and groove, oval, etc.) are not known for their accuracy. Whilst we do not have the results (repeatable grouping at distance) to evaluate the accuracy of the bullet in question, we do know that an odd barrel is not conducive to accuracy, as the bullet's centre of form will be changed on exit, and a yaw will be induced.

Warrior didn't know at the time of writing all the above incorrectly derived so-called 'facts', what the PH said about his particular shot, namely:

quote:

The first GSCHV bullet I have ever recovered from a game animal! I Recently shot a 62" horn length Kudubull in the Marken/Baltimore area over a distance of 180 meters with my .375H&H Magnum using a GSCHV 265gr bullet at a MV of just over 2900fps.
It was a perfectly broadsided shot, the bullet broke both large shoulder bones and was recovered under the opposite shoulder's skin. A perfect mushroom with almost all the petals fully in tact - 262.1gr retained weigth or a magnificent 98.9% weight retention after all that hard work! The Kudu dropped in it's tracks.

Nor does Warrior know how excellent this rifle groups with the particular GSC bullet - so all your deductions are totally wrong!!!

Perfect angle of incidence, no sign whatsoever of a 'yaw', only a bullet that did a large amount of hard work over a good distance.

You tell this PH his rifle is inaccurate, my friend, you will get floored before you've completed the sentence!

Jagter,

All I can say is that the outcome was magnificent, but I just mentioned some principles and the results seems to be at odds with the principles.

Does this rifle also shoot well with other bullets or not?

Warrior

On second thought, I think the rifle bore is round.
The rifling button was oval.
When the lands wear away, it will not spin a bullet anymore.
No compound rifling here, just an oval button.

The blackberries are half ripe and the IWBB is grazing contently in the briar patch.