Hello fellow members,

I'm looking for someone other then Gerard who would have real life experience with the 265gr HV GS Custom bullet in the H&H. I read on their website that 2900fps is max velocity for that bullet\caliber combo. I find it quite fast... Has anyone experimented with such load and perhaps chronographed it? If so, please share your data such as rifle used, barrel length etc. How does the bullet react on game? I just ran some numbers in my ballistics program and I must say that they are impressive!!! Would be one hell of a Moose load out here in Canada if one has to shoot across a small lake!

Load Data
~~~~~~~~~

Name: .375 Cal, GS Custom HV, 265 grn
Ballistic Coeff: 0.525
Bullet Weight: 265
Velocity: 2900
Target Distance: 250
Scope Height: 1.500
Temperature: 70
Altitude: 500

Ballistic Data
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Range Elevation Velocity Energy
0 yds -1.50 in 2900 fps 4948 fpe
25 yds -0.04 in 2857 fps 4801 fpe
50 yds 1.14 in 2814 fps 4658 fpe
75 yds 2.06 in 2771 fps 4519 fpe
100 yds 2.68 in 2729 fps 4383 fpe
125 yds 3.02 in 2688 fps 4250 fpe
150 yds 3.05 in 2646 fps 4120 fpe
175 yds 2.77 in 2605 fps 3994 fpe
200 yds 2.18 in 2565 fps 3871 fpe
225 yds 1.27 in 2525 fps 3750 fpe
250 yds 0.00 in 2485 fps 3633 fpe
275 yds -1.58 in 2445 fps 3519 fpe
300 yds -3.53 in 2406 fps 3407 fpe
325 yds -5.88 in 2368 fps 3298 fpe
350 yds -8.62 in 2329 fps 3192 fpe
375 yds -11.78 in 2291 fps 3089 fpe
400 yds -15.36 in 2253 fps 2988 fpe

Thanks for any replies,

Maurice

P.S. Also posted in African Big Game Hunting. No luck doing a search on the subject.

I've tried the HV's in both my 300 Win Mag and my 375 H&H. Used both in South Africa last year. Generally had really good success, except two instances withe the 375 that have been recounted here. In a nutshell, however, I am sure it was my 375 barrel that was to blame, not the bullet.

I'm more than a little swamped with Africa prep at the moment, but if you can wait til I am back I'd be happy to dredge up my reloading data and share it with you after. PM me at the end of September.

Cheers,
Canuck

quote:

In a nutshell, however, I am sure it was my 375 barrel that was to blame, not the bullet.

Hi Canuck,

I am curious to know how the barrel hurt the bullet, if we bear in mind that the tip of the bullet that does not touch the sides of the barrel's bore but is centered when chambered.

Regards
Chris

My 375 has a pretty rough barrel (tool marks showing on entire length) and I have had pressure problems with it using factory loads, not to mention a chronic fouling problem that plays havoc with accuracy. I think I was unable to get it up to Gerard's published velocities without pressure signs simply because of that (rough bore).

I have not checked the twist rate on the barrel yet (Gerard...did you send that twist checker you mentioned?), but suspect the combination of the twist rate and low velocity probably contributed to the bullets instability on impact with the waterbuck and impala.

I am also curious of the bore dimension, but have not been able to verify that either.

Gerard suspects, and I see no reason to differ, that the bullet did not open on impact because of instability.

I once had a Swift A-frame perform similarly from that same rifle. I had forgotten about it until I was going through my recovered bullets a few months ago. I recovered the bullet from the pelvis of a bison in 2000. I should take a picture of it and post here.

As a result of all this, I am not prepared to be critical of Gerard's bullet without being able to eliminate the influence of the barrel on it.

The 300 Win Mag bullets performed just as advertised.

Cheers,
Canuck

Hi Canuck,

I suspect the toolmarks on the barrel will be far less severe than the apparent lack of stability. On this score we should now the SF value of the bullet. What seems difficult for me to comprehend is how the very same barrel can shoot one bullet perfectly and another not perfectly. Gerard's HV bullets are as neat and precisely machined as you can wish them to be. They also foul less because of their driving band design, and as such the potential impact of the barrel should therefore be even less so than with Swift A-Frames in my humble opinion.

I suspect there is another problem, as I am sure the SF value of the 265 gr .375 HV bullet is above 1.5 even at much lower velocities than what is 'recommended'. The role of velocity is minute in the SF equation.

I am curious to know the correct SF value of the failed bullet.

Regards
Chris

truvelloshooter,

I am well aware that Winchester barrels are sometimes spotty in quality. Some are great, some are rough, and some are over size in the land and groove diameters.

A friend of mine has a .470 Capstick from the Winchester Custom Shop that ia a 10" twist but it is obviously not a McGowen barrel, told by a mere glance at the rifling pattern.

His Winchester barrel will shoot full contact shank bullets to 1.5 MOA, such as Barnes solids and XLC's.

However it fails miserably with both GSC FN and North Fork FP solids, which are shorter in length for the same 500 grain weight all around.

The driving banded bullets have minimal contact with the lands, at least not enough to stabilize in his barrel. They keyhole/yaw/tumble to the point that they hit full side-on at 50 yards.

He slugged his bore and found it oversize, I don't recall the dimensions. His bore also had a rough area near the muzzle that fouled badly, though this probably had little to do with the primary keyholing problem.

My McGowen barrel shot all the bullets well.

I have a stainless Winchester M70 .375 H&H converted to .375 Weatherby, and the smallest three shot group at 100 yards that I have ever shot was done with that Winchester barrel and the Bridger copy of the Walterhog bullet. That bullet has even less driving band surface than the GSC bullets.

There have been some bad Winchester barrels in the declining years of Winchester quality control. That may well be one of the reasons the M70 went under.

A rough barrel of improper dimensions might work better with full contact bullets than driving band bullets.

Canuck's bullets were actually bent like bananas and failed to open, that would mean they landed sideways, yawed before impact.

I am also aware of fine rifles bolt action and double that show the same keyholing.

A bolt action 10.75x68mm Mauser that shoots the old Barnes XFB very well but keyholes with the North Fork FP and CP solids.

A .470 NE double that shoots Woodleighs well and keyholes with banded bullets ...

The owners of these rifles will remain nameless to protect the afflicted, but buyer beware.

RIP,
Should a barrel have the correct twist rate to stabilise the length of FN or HV in question, but be oversize, the spin is not always imparted to the bullet. In severe cases the drive bands will strip and the bullet acts almost as if fired from a smoothbore.

If a barrel is that badly over spec, shooting full contact bullets will result in accelerated erosion of the throat. Either way, drive band or smooth shank, the result is less than satisfactory. The fix is to determine exactly what the barrel dimensions are, let us know and we produce the bullets at the correct dimensions for that rifle or double.

The same goes for under size barrels where early development of pressure prevents the full potential of the barrel to be exploited. It is not always an option to rebarrel a rifle or double and getting bullets in the right size solves that problem.

Regarding the original question about the 265gr.....

I could not get to the listed velocities in my model 70 with a Shillen barrel. Admitedly my barrel is only 21 inches but still.... If I remember correctly the loading instructions were to start with your max load with conventional bullets and work your way up from there until you get pressure signs. Then back off. You are supposed to get away with this as the driving bands will lessen the contact with lands and the friction and pressure will be less. My max load was 76 gr of Re 15 using the SAF 270. That load is about 2750. I started there and got more than a plenty of pressure. I backed off a couple grains and they shot well. I have only killed a white tail doe with the 265 HV. It worked fine on a white tail but it is a 375. Other friends have gotten phenomenal velocities with the HV's in other calibers and weights. I believe one friend got to 3700 before pressure signs came up using 130 gr 270 HV's. Like Canuk it may be just my barrel but about 2740was about all I could get without pressure signs. That was with 74 gr of Re 15. "Your milage may vary" seems to be the key phrase.

Gerard,
As you say about the smoothbore effect of an oversize rifled barrel on banded bullets, that is what I was beating around about.

Anyone needing an odd sized bullet would be wise to contract with you for such.

D Hunter,
2740 fps with a 21" .375 H&H is very fast for a 265 or 270 grain bullet!

Even in a 26" factory M700 .375 RUM I began to have ejector marks and flattened primers with the 270 grain GSC FN at 2950 fps, using H4350 Extreme. Maybe the .375 RUM barrel is a little on the tight side? It is very accurate with banded bullets and Swift A-Frames. I know it has a short throat and that is another issue with accuracy and velocity potential. The best possible balance there is the throat of the 2001 version .375 Weatherby.

In general, I have found the banded bullets to give little more than standard velocities, but they do it with less fouling and better accuracy.

Of course there are all kinds of variables in rifles, and Gerard must have some good test barrels, or the southern hemisphere Coriolis effect is somehow of assistance in speeding bullets along the rifling.

This is complex, as to velocity potential: chamber, brass, throat, rifling, powder lot, primer, etc. ... besides the bullet.

Rip,

Thanks for the info that you shared with us. I was not aware of Winchester's bad reputation for barrels, as most hunters over here in SA are quite happy with their latest Model 70's. I am truly amazed by the numerous examples that you have mentioned where banded bullets did not shoot well, both in bolt actions and doubles. Seems than that they are more finicky. Regarding bullets that did not open, I have seen other makes of bullets that did not fully open up in a wetpack (90 degrees straight on) tests due to incorrect heat treatment.

I just had another look at Canuck's failed bullet and its barrel marks seems normal; no severe indentations or scratches. It is not bent like a banana - its is straight, save for the thin part of the tip that is off centre, being slightly bent. It looks like it struck with an angle of attack and then veered to one side after some bone was encountered on entry (ie target interaction). Gerard lists a required twist rate of 13.2 for the 265 gr HV bullet, which is still a good deal slower than the standard 1-in 12". Hopefully Winchester is not that far off the track.

Perhaps the balance of these HV bullets should be shot at a paper target to establish if there is any keyholing and the grouping could also be checked. I cannot believe that Canuck did not check it out at the bench first before going to Africa. If the bullets were so unstable in the air that they actually land sideways, surely Canuck must have seen this during load development.

In addition, Canuck now mentions that a Swift bullet also did not open up on one occasion. Swift bullets generally open up a bit easier than mono metals. With all this doubt in the air, Canuck should definitely have the barrel checked out for possibly being over bore or the twist rate being slower or having a rough groove condition. If not within spec, the barrel can then confidently be blamed to free the bullet from undue suspicion. I think Canuck owes this to Gerard and for his own peace of mind. However, if the barrel is within spec, we are back to the other issues already mentioned. I have seen a shot with a Speer bullet that was deflected by the ribs of a kudu that should have gone straight and stabilization was not the issue, but angle of attack.

Regards
Chris

Canuck, were you shooting those bullets out of a 45-70?

Once again I would like to thank everyone for their replies. It is always nice to hear what people have to say.

Gerard, this was nothing personal...! You can post as you wish and share your comments. I mainly wanted to see what other people had to say about your bullets. The more information, the better

Maurice

quote:

Perhaps the balance of these HV bullets should be shot at a paper target to establish if there is any keyholing and the grouping could also be checked. I cannot believe that Canuck did not check it out at the bench first before going to Africa. If the bullets were so unstable in the air that they actually land sideways, surely Canuck must have seen this during load development.

In addition, Canuck now mentions that a Swift bullet also did not open up on one occasion. Swift bullets generally open up a bit easier than mono metals. With all this doubt in the air, Canuck should definitely have the barrel checked out for possibly being over bore or the twist rate being slower or having a rough groove condition. If not within spec, the barrel can then confidently be blamed to free the bullet from undue suspicion. I think Canuck owes this to Gerard and for his own peace of mind. However, if the barrel is within spec, we are back to the other issues already mentioned. I have seen a shot with a Speer bullet that was deflected by the ribs of a kudu that should have gone straight and stabilization was not the issue, but angle of attack.

Regards
Chris

I can see why Gerard argues with you so much. I don't particularly like your snide tone either.

Remember, I have no side in this. I am not pro-GS Custom or against. I put up the info on the performance of the GSC bullets on my last trip, because I said I would....good, bad or indifferent. I have not said anything bad about the GSCs, nor blamed the bullet for that failure...as far as I am concerned the jury is still out on that. If Gerard wants to work together to sort it out, I am happy to oblige.

Now remember, I have been pretty busy. I have moved twice in the last four years and have been doing three very different, and ever more time consuming jobs. I haven't spent a lot of time digging into these kinds of details.

I did not conveniently recall the failure of the Swift A-frame, as the tone of your comment might suggest. Recall that I have nothing in this, other than the headache you cause me by dragging me into your fight with Gerard. However, of late I have been going back through some of my notes and shooting log and have taken some time to reflect on the rifle I used in RSA last year.

In 2000 I borrowed the 375 H&H from a very good friend of mine, to go on a bison hunt in northern BC. By coincidence I had just purchased said rifel a few months earlier, on behalf of my friend at a gunshow he was not able to attend. My friend is not a reloader. I bought a few boxes of Remington Safari Express ammo with the Swift A-frames, sighted the rifle in and went huntin'.

The rifle grouped OK at the range...around an inch. I did notice the tool marks on the lands when I realized the barrel copper fouled like no other rifle I'd used. Anyway, I only shot a dozen or so times before the hunt.

On the hunt I shot a bison 3x at about 200 yards. I recovered all three bullets. Two were located in the far shoulder about two inches apart, mushroomed adequately, and the third was found by a friend in the hip bone when he was separating the hind quarter. It was not expanded, but was bent at the base. I did not get an opportunity to try and do a forensic examination of the bullet path. I just assumed it hit a bone and tumbled...which may be exactly what happened. I did not give it any further thought.

After I got back from the trip, my buddy asked me if I wanted to buy the rifle off of him now that I'd "blooded it". So I did, but did not use it for about a year. When I did, it was in preparation for a trip to RSA. I was doing some handloading, and it shot OK. I managed to get some decent groups with 300gr Sierra's, but not great. The rifle fouled like a whore though.

Then, not long before my trip to RSA, I took the last of the original Remington factory ammo to the range to blow off for practice. A couple shots into the session and one shots blew the primer, stuck the case in the chamber and broke the extractor (this is a push feed M70). I checked my old brass and sure enough the primers were all flat with the factory loads....I hadn't noticed as I had mistakenly assumed that factory ammo would be very safe and had never looked. Anyway, I had heard on this site and others that the Rem Safari Express loading was pretty hot and that others had run into problems with it. So I blamed the incident 100% on the ammo, Remington paid for my gunsmithing bill, and I moved on.

So, a couple years and a move to northern BC later (during which time very little shooting occured) I found myself again preparing for a trip to RSA. I had some GSC's on hand for my 375 and 300 Winnie that I planned to use for the trip. I only had 100 rounds for each, so I did the bulk of my practicing with cheaper, locally available bullets (mainly Sierra's in both cases). I did, however, do load development with 50 rounds of GSC HVs in each rifle, and took 40 rounds of GSC HV's with me to Africa.

In the 50 rounds of load development, I had great results with the 300 Win Mag. I got predicted velocities and pretty good accuracy. The 375 on the other hand, didn't seem to like them so much. I got pressure signs well before getting the target velocities, and the accuracy was eratic. I settled on a "slow" load that repeatedly gave about 1.5" groups...figured that was good enough for hunting. The backstops at the range I was shooting at were pretty shot up...most of the bullet holes were not clear and left tears, for both calibres. I cannot say for sure there was NO keyholing, but I didn't see any. There certainly wasn't any obvious keyholes from bullets being completely sideways at point of impact. [Note: Gerard mentioned on one of these threads that instability may not be noticed on paper targets, and that it may only express itself on impact with a solid target...I can't recall the explanation but it sounded reasonable and others here agreed].

As a result of all this, and perhaps not looking into things retrospectively and considering all factors, when the bullets did not perform in two cases in Africa (waterbuck and impala) I wanted to assume it had something to do with the bullets. As soon as Gerard mentioned twist rate being a potential culprit, I realized that the barrel of that rifle may have had something to do with it afterall.

It was not until very recently that I saw the old A-frame bullet from the bison, and my notes about the Remington factory ammo failure that I have become very suspicious about the barrel.

One last point...I don't own the rifle anymore. When I got back from Africa, my buddy that I had bought it from showed me a 416 Rem Mag he had recently purchased. It was the spitting image of my 375. He indicated that he was looking for a 375 for a coastal grizzly hunt, so I sold it back to him. Now he has a nice matching set.

So, while I can still get a hold of the rifle to do some additional investigating, I have to drive about 150km to go get it.

That's about all I have to say for now. Hope this helps clear things up in your mind, Chris. Please feel free to comment to your hearts content on what I should or should not do from here to satisfy your need for additional information on this matter, you pompous ass.

Cheers,
Canuck

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
Canuck, were you shooting those bullets out of a 45-70?

Now, see, thats funny.

Cheers,
Canuck

Hi Canuck,

You should not see my comments as critizism, as I was merely trying to make sense of this puzzling event that you shared with us on AR. The answers given so far were speculative at best and needed some clarification to better understand what really happened. RIP made his contribution and 500 Grains thought that you shot the .375 bullet through a 45-70. I was hinting all along at the influence of target interaction (angle of attack & deflection), especially now that you remembered that their was way back a Swift failure as well. When you said that you were still waiting for Gerard to send you the gadget that measures twist rates, I got the impression you still had the rifle. It would have been nice to clear the bullet convincingly and blame the barrel squarely, and Winchester as a company could have replaced that barrel for you free of charge to clear their name, but now we learn that you had passed this lemon of a rifle on and we will just have to live with the muddled up situation without having a conclusive answer. Matter closed then.

Take care and enjoy your hunt.
Chris

quote:

now we learn that you had passed this lemon of a rifle on

Nice comment. See what I mean about your attitude? FYI, if you'd read what I wrote more closely, you'd see I sold it back to the guy that sold it to me! He knows what he has. It shoots fine with the factory ammo he likes. I don't feel bad about it.

If you haven't noticed, you are the ONLY one pushing this issue. Presumably because you want additional ammunition to shoot at your arch-enemy Gerard. I don't think you really give two hoots about getting to the bottom of the situation for any other reason.

If Gerard wants me to follow up with investigating the matter (sending a twist checker, getting me to slug the bore, whatever), I'll happily arrange to get the rifle from my friend next time I am visiting with him. But, the fact is that I haven't heard from Gerard for more than 6 months. I am not so concerned about the matter that I will go to this trouble to satisfy my own curiosity. I am a busy guy and have other things to worry about. If it'll help Gerard though, I'll happily oblige.

quote:

and Winchester as a company could have replaced that barrel for you free of charge to clear their name,

The rifle is at least 20 years old...I doubt Winchester would even reply to my e-mail.

quote:

500 Grains thought that you shot the .375 bullet through a 45-70

The difference between 500's remark and yours is that he was joking. And it was funny.

quote:

I was hinting all along at the influence of target interaction (angle of attack & deflection)

That is possible, I suppose, but unlikely. The shot angle was a direct face-on presentation. Perhaps the bullet deflected off of the sternum? My point is that I am not prepared to critisize Gerard's bullets for the failure when there are still so many unknowns. If we ever get to discount some of those unknown variables, maybe we can draw a conclusion. But you sure as hell aren't going to push me into it with your snide and condescending remarks, when I know your sole purpose for it is not to solve a riddle for the riddle's sake, but to further your arguments against Gerard.

Btw, I purposely over-looked this remark initially, to avoid arguing with you....

quote:

I am curious to know how the barrel hurt the bullet, if we bear in mind that the tip of the bullet that does not touch the sides of the barrel's bore but is centered when chambered.

If that is not meant to be condescending or critical of my cognitive resources, what the f*ck else did you mean?

You are right in the end though....as far as me dealing with you on this topic goes, the case is closed.

Sincerely,
Canuck

Enigma, I realised that and was just pulling your leg. Check the Gallery Page on our site for comments about what guys are using in their .375s and photos of some good African hunting.
Eland with the 265gr HV
Waterbuck with the 265gr HV
Red Hartebeest and Zebra with the 200gr HV
Kudu with the 200gr HV
Blesbuck and Impala with the 200gr HV
Giraffe with the old 250gr HP

Canuck,

No need to jump to conclusions - my interest is solely with the experience that you had with your bullet, as it is indeed puzzling, and I have no axe to grind with Gerard as you hinted.

The fact that you stated ... "The shot angle was a direct face-on presentation." makes it an even more puzzling event. You stated that you have not noticed any keyholing before (with 50 rounds), so we must assume that the bullet's air stability was not in question, unless the damn barrel behaves in an erratic fashion. I have never seen it as a sin if we cannot explain a particular event. Target stability is still another interesting matter for discussion which is open under Alf's thread under African Big Game Hunting. We all live and learn.

I did also mention that strange things have happened with other makes of bullet. So, please this is not a personal thing against you or anybody. We are not argueing, we are discussing ballistic events.

Gerard showed some nice pictures of game that fell to the 265 gr HV bullet and that was good - sometimes a picture tells a 1000 words.

Cheers
Chris

Enigma's original went unanswered I believe. ie. who else has developed loads for the 265gr. HV in 375.? I was waiting for the answer! I have some of these but have not yet developed a hunting load. The problem is that Gerard's methods for load development are fine, but at nearly $1 per bullet, rather expensive. Real world experience to "hone in" perhaps would be beneficial. Despite what pundits say, if you have a CZ 550 in 375H&H and I have one as well, I would most certainly try your load as a good place to start.
Peter.

This was my question:

There is still an issue that we have not explained properly here on AR - the transition of air stability to target (flesh & bone) stability. Ie the other factors that come into play when the bullet hits flesh to keep its journey as straight & stable as possible for at least a critical distance that the target (animal)calls for to deliver a kill.

Let the doctors/scientists/engineers tell us the mechanisms involved for expanding and solid bullets. That would be informative.

Chris

Peter,
When a customer asks me to do a load development for him, I seldom use more than 20 bullets. I have done development with as little as four shots. Here is how: Load five bullets to do the speed development. From the start load work up in one grain increments at the maximum col the rifle will tolerate and chronograph the loads. Obviously the chrono needs to be reliable and read every shot. If the speed required is achieved, before five is done, that is a bonus and it often happens. Do not clean the rifle after the speed work up. Then load 15 rounds at the chosen powder charge and still at the maximum col for the rifle. Here is the most tedious part: Take your press and seater die with you to the range. Fire three for group and let the rifle cool. Put a dry bristle brush down the bore. Press the next three rounds 0.04" deeper into the cases and shoot a group. Repeat the process and use your good judgement to determine what col your rifle wants with this bullet. You do this only once as HV bullets do not differ from batch to batch. (This process does not work with jacketed lead bullets.)

The four shot development was with a 303 British. The first shot over the chrono was at the speed I wanted. I pulled the other four bullets and loaded the fifteen. The first three shot group was under an inch at 100. I figured I am done and packed up. On one occasion I used 26 shots to do a load. The rifle eventually grouped 7mm off the lands on the seventh three shot group. Just like women, you never know what they are going to come up with.

/

Are there any other opinions as to what governs stability once the bullet is inside the animal. Are there still people out there that believes a faster twist will yield more in-target stability when we provide our rifles with faster twist barrels, for example putting a 10" twist on a 458 lott (CIP Twist = 14").

I seem to remember that Norbert was advocating this school of thought and RIP just published it as well as part of his 10 Commandments for DG hunting. If the faster twist regime holds true for water, can we say it holds true for flesh?

Would like to hear some more opinions, as I have not heard of any 9,3 x 62 mm fan that complained about getting bad results with a slowish twist of 1-in-14" even at modest velocities of 2,250 fps. Is there really some magic to be had to rebarrel our DG rifles to obtain a "critical" benefit?

Alf, if you have the formula readily available could you be so kind to share it with us.

Chris

Thanks Gerard. I will try it again. However taking the press and powder measuring stuff to the range is not possible. But I can still accomplish the objectives with several trips.
peter.

RIP,

Your rule VII ... "Thou shalt use 10" or 12" twist rate for thy barrel rifling, for all calibers, as either rate will do."

RIP do you propose these twist rates with out regard to the gyroscopic stability factor (SF), or have you actually taken it into account to derive at extremely high SF values?

If so, I am curious to know how 'air stability' translates to "in-flesh stability" given Alf's explanation of how different flesh is from water, and for that matter, air as well.

Chris

/

RIP

The standard CIP twist for the 500 Jeff is 1 turn in 20" and for the 500 NE 1-in-15".

Do we have a problem in these two calibers with solids that are tumbling, pariculartly with the 500 Jeff, as it is way off your recommended spec?

Dan,

The results that you obtained with FN Solids in your 500 NE is absolutely magnificent. In the light of this, I ask the question again if we really need to rebarrel to faster twists. Dan are you ready to rebarrel?

Chris

/

Dan,

It seems then that there are no soul so far that blamed the twist rates of the big bore calibers mentioned above.

Dan, I take your silence as tacid approval that you are indeed quite happy with the 500 NE as it is and that you won't be following the advice to rebarrel to a twist of I turn in 10" or 12". Unecessary drastic faster twists also increase the peak pressure and torgue between the action and barrel.

Dan, I also concur with you that velocities above 2,400 fps is not only MOOT for DG hunting, but rather SILLY, as solid bullets fall prey to bending, expansion of the frontal nose area, the squirting of lead in FMJ, etc. The combination of hot loads and high pressure systems are in the main to blame for throat erosion and not longer throats - the 9,3 x 62 mm is proof therof.

Chris

quote:

Are there still people out there that believes a faster twist will yield more in-target stability when we provide our rifles with faster twist barrels

Alf says: "In a fast 45 cal rifle the 1:14 spin gave less penetration than the 1:12 rate of spin"
Dan says: "The longer the bullet, the greater the maximum lateral yaw distance. And the more a bullet yaws, the quicker it will tumble and thereafter penetration rapidly halts. A solution to the yaw problem is a faster barrel twist rate" and: "For more information about using faster rifling twist to achieve deeper bullet penetration in game, see the A-Square reloading manual"
333 OKH says: " The rifle I am building will have a fast rate of twist at least 1:8 I am looking for the best penetration"
Ron D says: "The .458 Win Mag gained a bad rap because a lot of guns chambered for it had a twist rate a little on the slow side especially when extreme penetration is required on very big game."
We know what RIP says after all his experiments with bullet lengths and twist rates.
UlfHere says: "Angular velocity does have a beneficial (but very slight) effect on hunting bullets in terms of promoting expansion and (to a greater degree) in keeping solids point forward."

quote:

The standard CIP twist for the 500 Jeff is 1 turn in 20" and for the 500 NE 1-in-15".

And the original factory loads for these were 533 and 570gr bullets to match the difference in twist rates.

quote:

Unecessary drastic faster twists also increase the peak pressure

Johan Loubser at Somchem proved this as unfounded.

quote:

Unecessary drastic faster twists also increase the torgue between the action and barrel.

Why would this be significant?

quote:

Dan, I also concur with you that velocities above 2,400 fps is not only MOOT for DG hunting, but rather SILLY, as solid bullets fall prey to bending, expansion of the frontal nose area, the squirting of lead in FMJ, etc

Good thing we have monos that are not limited in this way.

quote:

The combination of hot loads and high pressure systems are in the main to blame for throat erosion not longer throats - the 9,3 x 62 mm is proof therof.

Good thing we have monos with drive bands that keep the pressure down at higher than normal speeds. Any bullet/freebore/throat combination that allows the bullet base to exit the case before the shaft seals the bore, will suffer accelerated throat erosion.

/

Alf,
Have a look at the post. It seems to be more of an explanation than a claim and the comment was on the tests Andy made.
Link

/

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:

quote:

Are there still people out there that believes a faster twist will yield more in-target stability when we provide our rifles with faster twist barrels

Alf says: "In a fast 45 cal rifle the 1:14 spin gave less penetration than the 1:12 rate of spin"
Dan says: "The longer the bullet, the greater the maximum lateral yaw distance. And the more a bullet yaws, the quicker it will tumble and thereafter penetration rapidly halts. A solution to the yaw problem is a faster barrel twist rate" and: "For more information about using faster rifling twist to achieve deeper bullet penetration in game, see the A-Square reloading manual"
333 OKH says: " The rifle I am building will have a fast rate of twist at least 1:8 I am looking for the best penetration"
Ron D says: "The .458 Win Mag gained a bad rap because a lot of guns chambered for it had a twist rate a little on the slow side especially when extreme penetration is required on very big game."
We know what RIP says after all his experiments with bullet lengths and twist rates. Rip says: See "The Other Ten Commandments" thread on the African Hunting Forum
UlfHere says: "Angular velocity does have a beneficial (but very slight) effect on hunting bullets in terms of promoting expansion and (to a greater degree) in keeping solids point forward."

quote:

The standard CIP twist for the 500 Jeff is 1 turn in 20" and for the 500 NE 1-in-15".

And the original factory loads for these were 533 and 570gr bullets to match the difference in twist rates.

quote:

Unecessary drastic faster twists also increase the peak pressure

Johan Loubser at Somchem proved this as unfounded.

quote:

Unecessary drastic faster twists also increase the torgue between the action and barrel.

Why would this be significant?

quote:

Dan, I also concur with you that velocities above 2,400 fps is not only MOOT for DG hunting, but rather SILLY, as solid bullets fall prey to bending, expansion of the frontal nose area, the squirting of lead in FMJ, etc

Good thing we have monos that are not limited in this way.

quote:

The combination of hot loads and high pressure systems are in the main to blame for throat erosion not longer throats - the 9,3 x 62 mm is proof therof.

Good thing we have monos with drive bands that keep the pressure down at higher than normal speeds. Any bullet/freebore/throat combination that allows the bullet base to exit the case before the shaft seals the bore, will suffer accelerated throat erosion.

Gerard,
I see that Alf is just being evasive again.

I would like to see you admit that there is nothing wrong with your .375/300gr FN&HV bullets at 2700 fps in a 12" twist barrel.

It is a better combination than the .375/270 gr FN or .375/265gr HV at 2900 fps, and that is for sure. Admit it Gerard! Say "Uncle!"

Thumb nail:

A 10 or 12 inch twist can only help in every regard compared to the slower twist of yesteryear, for any rifle of .366 caliber or larger, to be used for either plains game or dangerous game: WITH PROPER PREMIUM BULLETS, NOT CUP AND CORE SOFTS AND FMJ "SOLIDS" WITH ROUND NOSES

Saeed's vast experience with Walterhogs of .375 caliber and 300 grain weight in a 12" twist barrel proves the case beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The only reason to use the 265 and 270 grain bullet is for those limited to only the .375 H&H, who can't get the higher velocity that can be gotten with a

.375 Wby
.375/.404 Saeed
.375/.338 Lapua RIPoff

I rest my case for the .375 caliber 300 grainer in a 12" twist at 2700 fps.

Use Saeed's cape buffalo experience combined with my "Iron Buffalo" experience.

The evidence is irrefutable.

Admit it Gerard.

/

Alf,
Just yanking your chain. I don't have the desire to analyze this as thoroughly as you do.

I have seen enough to make my pick without requiring a 99.999% confidence by p value of whatever ...

I am a little perturbed at Gerard for pushing the 265 and 270 grain HV and FN to the exclusion of the 300 grain HV and FN of the same caliber.

Even with a .375 H&H the .375/300gr FN penetrates better at 2500 fps than a 270 grain FN at 2900 fps ... IF one could get 2900 fps with it from a .375 H&H, which I cannot.

Alf,
Dr. Rip understands your point, and agrees that sectional density is not a joke. It is funny, but not a joke.

RIP,
Check out the 265 and 300gr HVs here. I do not think we differ in opinion on what is suitable for the various 375s. I make a small concession with the 375 Weatherby as it is only marginally faster than the 375 H&H, but a good match with the bore and groove specs of the Weatherby is more important than an inch or six difference in penetration ability.

However, there is something that you must not forget and that is that penetration testing is just that. It shows what goes deepest and little else. Now the iron buffalo showed you something else as well and you touched on it briefly. The faster bullets (in 375) resulted in much more destruction than the slower bullets. The question now is: If a 265gr HV or 270gr FN from a 375 H&H will give almost complete lengthwise penetration of a Cape Buff, why would I want more penetration at the cost of less destruction in the wound channel? With the bigger cases, speed can be brought up again with the heavier bullets. More speed tends to reduce penetration in tissue but the trade off is more damage in the wound channel.


I do not know why you guys cannot get up to 2900 with the 265gr HV. Must be something wrong with your powder. Even my rearlocking springy bolt Steyr runs at 2800 easily. I must really change that rifle for a mauser of some sorts. Next time you are over here, pick up a couple of cans of Somchem S341 and S335.

quote:

It is funny, but not a joke.

Gerard,
I guess you are marketing more to the masses, and it is business smart. I suppose I might be persuaded to use 265 and 270 grainers in the .375 H&H, but in the .375 Weatherby and .375 RUM, and .375/.338 Lapua RIPoff, and the .378 Weatherby, I will continue to want 300 grain HV and FN bullets.

I guess this means the upcoming .375 Ruger will be needing more of the 265 and 270 grain HV and FN, because it is a short-action .375 H&H.

Thank you for your response. We can agree to almost disagree. I see your point and you see my point, and we are seeing the same thing from slightly different perspectives.

If you want a real .375, try the 2001 version of the .375 Weatherby.
Note: the heavier 300 grainer allows a full 200 to 250 fps gain over the .375 HH. Using the lighter 265 to 270 grainers in the .375 Weatherby is indeed only marginally better. There is a transition point here where using slower powders and heavier bullets allows significant gains with the .375 Weatherby. It is futile to use lighter bullets than 300 grains in the .375 Weatherby. Might as well stick to the .375 H&H with the lighter bullets.

I would love to visit RSA again, and bring the wife along to load down both our suitcases with machined copper parts for the return trip.

/