Hornmady reccommended to me there .458 500 grain FMJ for use on cape buffalo out of a 458 Lott . They said they were about to do a run of bullets and that they were going back to there steel clad jacket they used to use 15 years ago. Can i get some opinions on this bullet they are reccommending.

Me personally, I would let someone else "experiment " with the new old bullets on their buffalo hunt and I would stick to something that is proven for my buffalo hunt, like the Woodleighs or the Swifts.

The steel jacketed Hornady solids were among the best when they were available. I am glad Hornady will be making them again.

The brass jacketed solids they were making were junk, by all accounts. It seems to me that many so-called "improvements" in bullets these days seem to be more like one step forward and three steps back.

For example, I have heard that Federal/Speer changed the composition of Jack Carter's Trophy Bonded Bear Claw bullet shanks from pure copper to gilding metal and that it has adversely affected that bullet's performance on game by making it brittle and reducing expansion.

Several years ago, I finished off a downed cape buffalo with one of the old Hornady steel jacketed .458" 500 grainers and it worked perfectly. Penetrated the spine and the entire body besides.

I also used them on a hippo (stalked and killed on land) and they achieved excellent through and through penetration of the chest cavity.

I'd use them again without hesitation.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
The brass jacketed solids they were making were junk, by all accounts.

It seems they got that message and are going back to their old steel jacketed solids. My understanding is that it's the same bullet as the old one. From Tanoose's post, sounds like they're making them in .458". I spoke to them today about their new .450/.400 ammo, and was told that the solids would be the same copper-clad steel jacketed solids that they were making 10 years ago. He said that they're making the .400 solids right now. I don't know if this means that they'll be making them in the other large calibers as well, but I hope so.
-----------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Make sure you get the steel jacketed bullets! (and not some left over brass jacketed disasters)

MrLexma,

I have heard the rumors about the Bearclaw being changed. Don't know if they are true but there performance has always been excellent for me, including last October - all experience with 300gr 375's out of a 375H&H.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
The brass jacketed solids they were making were junk, by all accounts.

I think that is not true, as my son used them on buff and the recovered bullets were just fine. But rumors spread fast, though it is a non-issue, since they are changing the design.

The 500 grain 458 Hornady FMJ helpd up to 2,400 fps PB impact in my test of FMJ's. As good as a Woodleigh, so why not buy Woodleighs who stuck with the original (steel jacket) design?



Pictured, the 500 grain Hornady after penetrating 71 x 3/4 inch thick exterior grade plywood boards at 2,400 fps.

The new Trophy bonded Speers are an inferior product compared to the original Jack Carter bullets.



Speer re-made them to be pretty I guess, adding 5% zinc (gilding metal) rather than 100% copper, and maybe more antimony in lead.

The Devil is ini the details. This apparently small difference does make a difference!

Here is the original 400 grain TBBC at 2750 fps! (3rd from left). Alot harder test of a bullet, and alot better bullet than the 500 grain TB Speer.



Other 400 grain bullets, L to R are, Barnes X, North Fork (best), TBBC (close 2nd), and Woodleigh. All better than a 500 grain TB Speer!

Support bullet makers who care about you and your hunt.

Andy

Wouldn't a steel jacketed bullet be very hard on the rifling? No A-frame pictured above,I guesss an A-frame might hold up well in 500gr weight.

Shootaway,

The steel jacket solids have a thick enough coating of copper on them that the rifling does not engrave below that depth into the steel.

There are many hunters here who have used both the original Hornady and Woodleigh in 375, 416 and 458.

I believe the old Kynoch ammo was first or most widely used to use this type of construction so it has been around even in double rifles for many years.



Pictured L to R; 450 grain Barnes X, 450 gr North Fork (best), 450 grain Swift (note migration of rear core and how bearing surface expands into a beer barrel), and 450 grain Kodiak.

The 500 grain Swift in .458 and .475 is an excellent bullet, and due to lower velocity and higher SD better than the 450 grain Swift. And it does hold up at PB and 2400 fps. My point was that a North Fork will hold up to much higher velocity and with a bullet with much less SD. That is impressive.

Andy

I didn't know about the Speer TB's not being as good as the originals<thanks for that info.I will try the 500gr Barnes,swift A-frame,Hornady steel jacket,and woodleigh for best accuracy out of a 458WM.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Andy:
The steel jacket solids have a thick enough coating of copper on them that the rifling does not engrave below that depth into the steel.

Well, maybe not much steel.

450 grain Swift (note migration of rear core and how bearing surface expands into a beer barrel)

I don't believe that this has any bearing on bullet performance.


My point was that a North Fork will hold up to much higher velocity and with a bullet with much less SD. That is impressive.

When was it decided that Swifts do not hold up to high velocities? And when was it decided that North Fork softs do?

Good point Will! What is your oppinion on the Barnes 500gr TSX compared to the other bullets?

/

Yes Alf, the old style with the steel jacket. Reportedly an excellent bullet. I have no personal experience with them, btw. Its the new ones, with the brass jacket - now discontinued - that have apparently had a checkered record of success in the real world.

Kynoch solids of the past, with the thin nickel jackets, have a spotty record too.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by Will:

I don't believe that this has any bearing on bullet performance.

Will,

Actually it does.

The Swift "beer barrel" of the rear core helps support the front cores expanded mushroom.

Look closely at any Swift you have recovered.

This is very obvious in the 500 grain 458 and one reason it does better than the 450 grain which fractures the front core 2 out of three times at the velocity I can get in a 450 Dakota. One reason the front mushroom of the lighter bullet does fracture is because the rear beer barrel (which has a lighter rear core) does not support the front (expanded) core as far out along the mushroom.

On the 500 grain bullet the beer barrel and rear of the mushroom actually make contact almost all the way out to the edge of the expanded bullet!

The core of the 450 grain expands to .517 caliber and the heavier rear core of the 500 grain to almost 60 caliber.

Its obvious if you look at the two bullets side by side.

I have seen 6.5mm Swifts hold up to very high velocity and the rear core functions in the same way.

This migration of the un-bonded rear core is one reason why Winchester (Olin) engineers use a steel insert in the rear of the Fail Safe bullets to keep them from expanding. (It changes the bullets CG, causing it to veer off course, and the copper jacket can rupture).

I will use a Swift of high SD but dont think this very unconventional feature is nearly as reliable as the original TBBC or North Fork.

I believe this is Saeed's opinion also.

I trust a solid copper base more than I do an un-bonded rear core whose jacket is so soft that the core expands from .458 to nearly .60 caliber on impact.

Like a NP, on occasion you will see them expand from both ends. The solid base will not.

Don't get me wrong, I like Swifts and would use them more if I did not have a lifetime supply of .375 caliber Bitterroots, and North Forks a phone call away.

This is what I had to say about the 500 grain Swift in my test of premium .458's:

"The 500 gr. Swift was as reliable as the 400 gr./.416. It actually had more penetration than the reference standard while having over 20% more frontal area and 30% larger permanent wound cavity. It decelerates slowly and had enough residual velocity to split open the front of the third water bucket. Only the 500 gr. Swift and NF-CP managed to carry this much over pressure into the third water bucket. This is a significant achievement. (A .416 Swift will also split the front face of the 3rd bucket, which may account for it’s excellent reputation as a buffalo gun). The Swift had the highest retained weight of any bullet tested other than the experimental 418 gr. Bitterroot. The lead core is so dark, it is almost black, and appears to be made from pure lead.

Most Swift bullets when they are recovered from game have a characteristic “beer barrel†bulge in the bearing surface of the bullet, where the un-bonded rear core has migrated toward the partition. While there was only 108 fps difference between the 450 and 500 gr. bullets, the heavier Swift is not even close to losing its front core. This puzzled me for two years until I measured the diameter of the two bullets bearing surface. The 500 gr. was a uniform .587 caliber. The 450 gr. was noticeably smaller at .517. The swollen rear core of the 500 gr. bullet supports the expanding mushroom much better than the lighter core of the 450 gr. I will probably re-test the 500 gr. Swift at 2,450 fps and see if it still holds up to point blank impact. I am 90% certain that it will. The Swift is available in factory 450 Dakota ammunition, and was one of the most effective bullets of this test. It was also one of the most accurate, routinely shooting into one inch groups with 96 gr. RL-15."

Andy

How did this pop up to the top again?

If one had shot 40 or 50 buff with the Swift and another 40 or 50 buff with some other bullet that did not form a beer barrel, and there was some statistical significance to how much faster the non-beer barrel bullet killed buff than the Swift then maybe it would make a difference to me.

None of the Swifts that I have recovered showed any bulging.

Every Swift that I have recovered has a distinctive beer barrel bulge behind the partition.

Some people are interested in optimizing bullet performance. Some people are not. I suggest that only the former group continue reading this thread.

Almost every Swift A-frame I have recovered from game has the beer-barrel bulge.

A few 300gr 375 A-frames I recovered from a bison did not, but they were shot between 220 and 300 yds and the front portion did not fully expand either. One 270gr 375 bullet recovered from an impala only barely had a bulge, and did not fully expand. I think the 375 bullets are pretty tough, in order to withstand the higher velocities of the 2 Weatherbys, etc.

I can see how the bulge can be a good thing...supporting the expansion of the front section, as Andy points out above.

I fail to see how the bulge is bad in any way though.

I have never seen the front portion of a Swift A frame fail. Maybe I just haven't shot them at high enough velocity, or at wood.

I have also never had what I would consider insufficient penetration or insufficient expansion.

My 2c CDN FWIW,(1.85c USD)
Canuck

This 500gr Swift A-frame was shot through the spine of a cape buff at about 15 yards, mv=2500 fps.

That bullet looks over stressed,imagine if it were shot from a 375RUM.From the photo wee see that the cross metal section has taken the impact.This is why I prefer the Barnes bullet,the lead is useless,it just rips back on impact as if it were not there.

They look to me like they performed pretty much as designed.

Are you insinuating that they failed and/or that the monometal Barnes-X would have performed better?

quote:

wee see that the cross metal section has taken the impact.

Huh?? Again, I see bullets that performed as designed.

Canuck,I know that it performed as designed and everyone agrees that it is a fine bullet but one can think of the Barnes as being a cross metal section from tip to end.Really,why do we need the lead? Has it been shown that lead in a bullet is advantageous in any way over a monometal copper bullet?This is not to say that I will not use a lead bullet because accuracy is a very important factor and if you cannot hit them, then.

Shootaway,

I have never used Barnes X but many swear by them. If they open like they should, which they do as long as they are used on appropriate sized game, then they are "good" expanding bullets just like Swift.

The definition of "Performance" seems to get mixed up with the effect on game, just too much time on some folks hands, and self-appointed experts over-analyzing insufficient or irrelevant data.

Will,

The only "self appointed experts" I have met lately have all written books.

Canuck,

Nice looking bullets. Did you ever write up a hunt report on your experience with the Mighty Mbogo? Id like to read it.

Andy

Andy,

Ain't it the truth! Mostly I'm just trying to yank your chain a bit. Actually I think it is good work that you pay attention to such details.

quote:

Really,why do we need the lead? Has it been shown that lead in a bullet is advantageous in any way over a monometal copper bullet?

Try shooting a Barns X out of a .458 Win Mag. Hope your Barns performs well at 1900 fps, because that's about all you are going to get with the bullet intrusion on powder capacity. Or in my case, with my 404, bullets causing a long overall OAL have a hard time makeing he transition from feed ramp to chamber, causing jams. Or you can take the fact that there are a lot of guns that just plain won't shoot X bullets worth a crap. This includes my .300 Winnie and '06. I Won't even go into my short mags, where the limitations of the monometals is obvious in terms of powder limiting case intrusion.

So, yes, there are good reasons to keep lead bullets around.

GAHUNTER,In the Barnes manual(vol.3) they have listed a 458 Win Mag max load with their 500grain XFB bullet with Reloader 7 at a whopping 2208fps and have an asterix to specify it is the reommended powder.I tried to get data on the TSX for 458Win Mag but they said that the data is imcomplete.Reading the hunting reports I notice that it is common to shoot buffalo numerous times before they fall.I find this hard to accept.They must be useing improper bullets,shooting from shot-out barrels,or from barrels that have not been properly cleaned.Or they must be shooting them in the wrong place.I will have to do the research and discover the correct way to go about shooting the buffalo before I go hunt one in the future.

Shootaway ;;;As much as it pains me to say it , it would seem that large African Herbivors don,t react to a big bullet in the right place as easily as brown bears do....I do think there is some not perfact shots taken ,,but who can say you or I wouldn,t shoot worse than the people we read about who had a hard time dumping their animal........The Swift A Frame is a good killer........I have never heard of one failing.......But I have always had out standing results with Barnes X bullets.......I have had even the orig,pointy tipped 325 gr .416 X show sighns that it had expanded on a 130 lb does ribs.where the striking velocity was around 2500 fps.....The exit was the same size that it was on a bears lung shot.. About 2 " diameter...The 300 gr 416 and 458 bullets can really move some stuff as can be seen from my avatar That was a 300 gr 416 X that was traveling around 2800 fps..... zoom zoom If you shoot anything in the brain with a 460 Wetherby it will most likley fall straight down ... All you need to do is get to be good enough to do that........