There are several ways to define bullet taper. Are we talking about the thickness of the bullet jacket decreasing or increasing as you move from nose to base or are we defining it as the bullet diameter changing as we move from nose to base?
I have Woodleigh bullets on hand for my 458 Lott (nominal diam. .458), 465 H&H (.468) and 470 Nitro (.474). Here are the results of measuring bullet diameters on these FMJ bullets.

.458 .468 .474
Below canalure .45740 .46690 .47335
Half way back .45755 .46695 .47360
At base .45780 .46715 .47370

Soft Nose Bullet .47420
.47410
.47400


These measurements show that the FMJ Woodleigh bullets are tapered in diameter from nose to base. The solid bullets are also under nominal bullet diameter for each caliber. In contrast the soft nose bullet was at or slightly above nominal bullet diameter and appears to have a reverse taper, getting smaller at the base.

I received the following info from Geoff Mcdonald of Woodleigh bullets on the problems associated with trying to balance performance on impact on dangerous game and barrel barrel damage.

"The hardness, as received from the mill is around 130 HV and the jacket after drawing ends up at about 200 HV5 at the mouth (bullet base) and 180 HV5 at the closed end.
After forming into bullets the base usually increased a few more points in hardness.
If the metal hardness exceeds 110 - 120 HV, there is a risk of damaging some older and soft barrels. Most modern barrels are not a problem.
So it seams that we are treading a fine line between bullet strength and barrel damage."

So what does this mean to me. Since soft nose bullets do not have steel jackets. once I have determined that the solid bullets shoot to the same impact point as soft nose bullets, I will limit the use of soilds to actual use on dangerous game and do my practicing and load development with soft nose bullets. Especially in my 1930's 465H&H. With my new Searcy 470 I will go with Butch's recomendation.

465H&H

I spoke with Scearcy today and I asked what solid they recommended I shoot in their rifles. I was told to use the 500 grn Woodleigh.

crl

Anybody have any experience with any specific brands of solids in Merkel double rifles?

GSI gunsmith said he didn't think there was a restriction on type of bullet, but didn't seem aware of the potential problem, either.

Steve

I read somewhere that Whitworth fired paper patched hardened steel bullets without damage to the barrel. I could take a 500 gr.monometal bullet, two wraps of .004 paper and shoot it in my 470. I won't do it for two reasons: 1. There are proven bullets readily available. 2. I'm lazy.

Dave

465H&H,

Thanks for the empirical data. Interesting that the Woodleigh solids you measured appear to be somewhat tapered.

Below are the questions I asked and the response I received from Geoff McDonald. He essentially corroborates all that 500grains has said above re: his bullets and classic English doubles. He also suggests that continental doubles, such as Chapuis, Merkel, Kreighoff et al., should be fine with his solids.

So far, though, I have received no response to my inquiries of several London gunmakers. And I forgot to ask them in Reno when I was face to face!

Ah well, for your edification:

----- Original Message -----
To: Woodleigh Bullets
Subject: Woodleigh Solids

Gentlemen:

I have been a user of your fine bullets in many calibres for many years. I have heard it said recently that the fine English double rifle makers discourage the use of Woodleigh solids in their double rifles, or suggest that such use should be minimised, because:

1. All of the old Kynoch solids were of tapered shank design. Kynochs would therefore obturate and swage themselves into the rifling. Woodleighs do not share the tapered shank design of the old Kynoch solids, but instead have full calibre parallel sides. The Woodleighs only share the nose profile of the old Kynochs, not the full bullet profile.

2. The steel used in the Woodleigh solids is more "rigid" or somehow "tougher" than that used in the Kynochs.

3. When the more rigid steel jacket of the Woodleigh is coupled with its parallel sided design, the result is a bullet that does not obturate or flex, and that therefore places more stress on the barrels of a double rifle than the old Kynochs did, thereby making them liable to separate.



WOODLEIGH BULLETS
----- Original Message -----
Subject: Re: Woodleigh Solids

Everything you have quoted is true.
Some barrels will swage with our FMJ.
Most don't. Notably we have never heard of barrels or rifles (many brand names) manufactured by Webley & Scott, swaging.
Our tests have shown that many British rifle manufacturers used quite soft steels over many years.
I am convinced that it is the soft barrels which swage.
Our tests indicate that barrels which test 220 Vickers and over are fine.
Most continental and American barrels are OK.
One suggestion is to have your barrels slugged to check on groove diameter, and to have them hardness tested. This involves a tiny indentation which can barely be seen by the naked eye, and can be done under the forend.
Monolithic Solids are definitely harder on barrels than our FMJ, and are not recommended for most double rifles.
Regards,
Geoff McDonald.
WOODLEIGH BULLETS

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:

----- Original Message -----
To: Woodleigh Bullets
Subject: Woodleigh Solids

Gentlemen:

I have been a user of your fine bullets in many calibres for many years. I have heard it said recently that the fine English double rifle makers discourage the use of Woodleigh solids in their double rifles, or suggest that such use should be minimised, because:

1. All of the old Kynoch solids were of tapered shank design. Kynochs would therefore obturate and swage themselves into the rifling. Woodleighs do not share the tapered shank design of the old Kynoch solids, but instead have full calibre parallel sides. The Woodleighs only share the nose profile of the old Kynochs, not the full bullet profile.

2. The steel used in the Woodleigh solids is more "rigid" or somehow "tougher" than that used in the Kynochs.

3. When the more rigid steel jacket of the Woodleigh is coupled with its parallel sided design, the result is a bullet that does not obturate or flex, and that therefore places more stress on the barrels of a double rifle than the old Kynochs did, thereby making them liable to separate.



WOODLEIGH BULLETS
----- Original Message -----
Subject: Re: Woodleigh Solids

Everything you have quoted is true.
Some barrels will swage with our FMJ.
Most don't. Notably we have never heard of barrels or rifles (many brand names) manufactured by Webley & Scott, swaging.
Our tests have shown that many British rifle manufacturers used quite soft steels over many years.
I am convinced that it is the soft barrels which swage.
Our tests indicate that barrels which test 220 Vickers and over are fine.
Most continental and American barrels are OK.
One suggestion is to have your barrels slugged to check on groove diameter, and to have them hardness tested. This involves a tiny indentation which can barely be seen by the naked eye, and can be done under the forend.
Monolithic Solids are definitely harder on barrels than our FMJ, and are not recommended for most double rifles.
Regards,
Geoff McDonald.
WOODLEIGH BULLETS

Thank you for sharing this excellent information.

quote:

Monolithic Solids are definitely harder on barrels than our FMJ, and are not recommended for most double rifles.
Regards,
Geoff McDonald.
WOODLEIGH BULLETS

I respectfully disagree with such a sweeping statement. All monolithic solids are not the same.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:

quote:

Monolithic Solids are definitely harder on barrels than our FMJ, and are not recommended for most double rifles.
Regards,
Geoff McDonald.
WOODLEIGH BULLETS

I respectfully disagree with such a sweeping statement. All monolithic solids are not the same.

I am with Gerard on this one. Mr. MacDonald should have said "non-driving band monolithic solids". Solids from GS Custom, Bridger and North Fork are much kinder on a barrel than Woodleigh steel-lined solids.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:

quote:

Monolithic Solids are definitely harder on barrels than our FMJ, and are not recommended for most double rifles.
Regards,
Geoff McDonald.
WOODLEIGH BULLETS

I respectfully disagree with such a sweeping statement. All monolithic solids are not the same.

I am with Gerard on this one. Mr. MacDonald should have said "non-driving band monolithic solids". Solids from GS Custom, Bridger and North Fork are much kinder on a barrel than Woodleigh steel-lined solids.

All three posts are misleading! First there is nothing wrong with any "PROPERLY" designed Solid in a double rifle or any other rifle, as long as the rifle is properly bored. So the statement all mono-metal bullets are bad for double rifles, is too broad!

#2 The statement that "ANY" solid is OK in all Double rifles is too broad as well! As anyone who knows anything about double rifles, also knows the the bore dia may be as much as .005 different for the same cartridge designation. So even a properly designed mono-metal solid that is safe in one , say 450/400NE 3" may not be as good in another of the same chambering. They range from .406 to as large as .412 in bore dia.

#3 The driveing bands, properly cut, are safer, but not in all cases completely safe in ALL double rifles. If the barrels slugg to be proper for the dia of the mono-metal bullet you want to use, that has properly cut driveing bands (pressure rings) Then it may be fine in thet rifle, but not in your buddy's rifle with the same caliber designation.

The safe bet is to slugg "YOUR" barrels and if they match the pressure ring mono bullet you want to use then, it is OK, for YOUR rifle. So all I'm saying stateing the any bullet regardless of design is given a sweeping indorsment, for ALL double rifles, is incorrect, and too broad. Suffice to say the copper monos with driveing bands, or pressure rings, are the safest bet for a double rifle, with some qualification needed for each rifle on an individual basis.

I say if you are wanting to use mono-metal bullets, in your double, then do your home work first, then select the bullet you want to use for YOUR rifle. The chances of damage is lessened buy the use of the copper solids designed with PROPERLY designed pressure rings, like the North Fork, and it seems the GS Custom, but even they can be a bad deal, if YOUR rifle is an ODD bore size! IMO, the solid brass, or bronze ones with no rings are a No NO on any double rifle! At least "MY" doubles!

quote:

#3 The driveing bands, properly cut, are safer, but not in all cases completely safe in ALL double rifles. If the barrels slugg to be proper for the dia of the mono-metal bullet you want to use, that has properly cut driveing bands (pressure rings) Then it may be fine in thet rifle, but not in your buddy's rifle with the same caliber designation.

Varying bore/groove dimensions on doubles as well as bolt rifles is a fact of life. It is not confined to old rifles either. This is why we state on the page I linked to above:

"Should your double rifle or other firearm have an unusual bore / groove configuration, we can make special run bullets to suit the bore of your rifle exactly. There is no extra charge for this service."

Further to the above discussion:

Westley Richards have replied to my inquiry re: the use of Woodleigh solids in their double rifles as follows:

"Dear Sir,

We have never discouraged the use of Woodliegh solids in our rifles and we have used these bullets in our own loadings for 17 years now with no problems.

I hope this helps.

Kind Regards,

Simon Clode
Westley Richards"

Wish I hadn't just bought those old style (pre-banded) Barnes solids. Not a big deal.

And the Barnes banded solids? Are the bands attempting to do the same thing that GS, North Fork and Bridger have done? They look like they have significantly more bearing surface, though. Any thoughts on these?

quote:

Originally posted by skl1:
Wish I hadn't just bought those old style (pre-banded) Barnes solids. Not a big deal.

And the Barnes banded solids? Are the bands attempting to do the same thing that GS, North Fork and Bridger have done? They look like they have significantly more bearing surface, though. Any thoughts on these?

Alas,
Most of us have some old round nose solids to plink with, whether Woodleigh or Barnes, FMJ or monometal. None are good for anything but plinking.

In a double rifle, definitely stick with the proper banded bullets of Flat nose solid design.

GSC FN
North Fork FP

Both are copper and hard enough for any penetration on game, it has been proven.

The flat-nosed Bridger Brass and Barnes brass banded solids both seem to have greater and harder bearing surface that I prefer in single barrel bolt guns, and single shots, not for double rifles, IMHO.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by skl1:
And the Barnes banded solids? They look like they have significantly more bearing surface, though. [QUOTE]

The Barnes bands are way too wide to provide the same pressure relief effect that you find in true driving band solids (GS Custom, North Fork, etc.). Since the Barnes bands are so wide, the bullet will cause the barrel to flex. Probably not as bad as the original Barnes brass solids, but still an inferior design which is especially problematic for double rifles.

Here is another e-mail I received from geoff of Woodleigh today.

"We do make our FMJ .0005" to .001" under the nominal diameter, and as you have noted, more so in the last 10 years.
The reason is to help reduce the pressure spike at about the time the bullet is entering the rifling.
As a general rule, our FMJ won't damage barrels unless they are very soft (below 220 Vickers), which some British barrels are.
It is well known that monolithic solids are harder on barrels, but I understand that Searcy claims his barrels are fine with monolithics. If that is so then they will certainly be fine with ours.
Even though our steel jacket is harder than the brass of a monolithic, the soft cladding and the soft lead core allow it to yield to all but soft rifling.
As we are both aware we have to be careful that the steel doesn't yield too readily, when it strikes hard bone.
Have posted recoveries.
Regards,
Geoff.
WOODLEIGH BULLETS"

I agree with 500 grains and RIP that banded solids work wonderfully but I don't agree with RIP that steel jacketed RN solids are only good for plinking. That opinion doesn't hold up in the field where many very very experienced elephant hunters hunt the huge beasts with RN steel jacketed solids every year with complete confidence.

465H&H

I spent some time looking at the various solids, I have cut many of them in half to look at their construction and for that reson I will not shoot any bullets with a steel jacket like the old Hornady. The first time I cut a 375 300 solid I ruined my band saw blades, the homo solids of Barnes cut quite easily and I am comfortable shooting those. I wrote to hornady on the subject of their steel jacketed bullets and the reply I recieved was premature barrel wear will occur from an overdiet of them....for that reason and my own experience I won't use them. Again I would be leary of ruining an expensive double but the occasional use of them to save your life from some hel-bent DG would be an acceptable abuse of the barrel(s)

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Here is another e-mail I received from geoff of Woodleigh today.

"It is well known that monolithic solids are harder on barrels, but I understand that Searcy claims his barrels are fine with monolithics.

...

Regards,
Geoff.
WOODLEIGH BULLETS"

It looks like Mr. MacDonald is not very up to date on the designs of his competitors'
bullets.

RIP & 500 grains,

Thanks for the replies on the Barnes solids and banded solids.

I'll have to see if GeorgeS wants these for his .470 Capstick.

To date I have run 100 +- Woodleigh Solids through my Krieghoff. No problems noted yet. After reading this post a few times, the different thoughts all seem to have merit.

You pay your $$$, take your chances.