quote:

Originally posted by Indy:
Here's a point about Barnes monolithic solids.

In 2007 I believe they had a large flat meplat. As such, they would penetrate 20% to 80% further than conventionally shaped round nosed solids. Later, Barnes started making them with round noses for "marketing reasons," I heard.

Still later the US government decreed they were "cop killer bullets," because they were made out of brass, and Barnes is not allowed to sell them. So we have to shoot flat pointed copper bullets such as North Fork and G.S. make.

This is not accurate.

Only some of the Barnes Banded solids are currently affected by the ATF issue. In .458, I think it is only the SOCOM bullet that is affected. .416, .474, .510, and others are still available from Barnes. In any event, there are other sources of Brass Flat nosed monolithic solid (non-expanding) bullets for large bore weapons that are not affected by the ATF issue (at least not yet). CEB bullets are brass and currently available in all the popular calibers.

Todd,

That's good to hear.

But what about the rumor that Barnes has redesigned their solids to eliminate the flat meplat? If so, they just won't penetrate as deeply. It's a fact that GS or North Fork, which look like big semi-wadcutters, or CEB bullets, will penetrate deeper than round noses.

No rumor, just look on their website. They have gone back to a round nosed profile under the guise of better feeding. Most of the big boys you can still get as flat points if our idiotic ATF would get off its ass and release this ridiculous impingement on Barnes.

They have a press release on the site that explains it. What I have not yet seen is the actual germ of information that started this whole thing. Round and round and round we go, but where it all started, who the hell knows!

If anyone knows facts about the start of it all I'd like to hear them. In emails to me Barnes has so far just says "In October 2011, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) classified twelve individual Barnes Banded Solid projectiles as armor piercing ammunition" Same as what's on their site. What prompted ATF to do this?

It is true that flat pointed solids do not feed in all rifles. They fed well in my Model 70 but not in my PH's Model 70. I have heard that polishing the feed ramp will cure the feeding problem but not tried it.

One reason other suppliers will probably not get stopped is that they make their solids out of copper, not brass. They are not as hard and get deformed a little, but, in my experience, do not get deformed enough to hurt penetration.

I have recovered one .458 and three .375 solids, all copper North Fork bullets, from elephant and buffalo. The .375s seem to deform a bit more, probably because they are skinnier and hit at higher velocity.

Great bunch of posts. Last year while working up loads for the .458 wm we were able to achieve 2230 with a 500 gr Hornady. Pretty much a hand full for most people in a light rifle but settled on a load that put it through the chrono at 2150. With current powders and better bullets than were available, it is definitely a capable round. Highly disappointed in bullet performance at 30-35 yards but it worked out in the end. Can't wait to get back to shooting and see what the CEB's will do out of it.

Indy,

Yes, Barnes has gone back to the round nose but they say you can still get the flat nose by purchasing directly from them over the internet. That is, for the bullets not affected by the ATF issue. Currently, the AFT has restricted the calibers that are spitzers and the flat and round nose in .375, .410, and .458 SOCOM. For me, I have switched to the CEB BBW#13. I'm still a huge TSX fan but I'm going to give the Non-Cons a try this year on Black Bear next month and then Buff in October. Results will determine if I stay with them. I don't see switching from the TSX however on my bolt action rifles. We'll see. But for solids, it's the CEB. That is, unless the ATF goes after them also.

Baxter,

I don't know the exact details on how this ATF thing with Barnes got started but the info is here on AR if you dig for it. From what I remember, there was a new startup company that applied for approval of their bullet design, (again, the name of the company is here on AR somewhere). The design was very similar to the Barnes Banded solid but if I remember correctly, this approval request was for a 6.5mm bullet, not the flat nosed game bullets we use in big bores. When the approval was denied, they complained to the ATF that their bullet design was very similar to Barnes so why were they approved. The ATF then looked at Barnes and you know the rest. I want to say that the first I heard of this was in a post by Ackely Improved User. If this is the way it went down, I'm afraid that others will be targeted eventually as well. I really don't want to shoot solid copper as opposed to brass. Hopefully it won't come to that.

quote:

I don't know the exact details on how this ATF thing with Barnes got started but the info is here on AR if you dig for it. From what I remember, there was a new startup company that applied for approval of their bullet design, (again, the name of the company is here on AR somewhere). The design was very similar to the Barnes Banded solid but if I remember correctly, this approval request was for a 6.5mm bullet, not the flat nosed game bullets we use in big bores. When the approval was denied, they complained to the ATF that their bullet design was very similar to Barnes so why were they approved. The ATF then looked at Barnes and you know the rest. I want to say that the first I heard of this was in a post by Ackely Improved User. If this is the way it went down, I'm afraid that others will be targeted eventually as well. I really don't want to shoot solid copper as opposed to brass. Hopefully it won't come to that

Thanks Todd. That is the info I have been looking for. I'll do dome searches again. All the other ones just have the after-effects of the ATF's brilliant decisions. What the hell has our country come to with this nonsense?

When Barnes listed the changes on their web site I shopped every outlet in my area and purchased a goodly quantity of Flat Point Barnes banded solids in .375, .416, and .458. You know the bureaucrats and how long they can take to recognize the obvious. In the mean time, I have enough (more than enough I assume) to feed my Africa Battery for longer than I will have need of them.

We can only hope that Barnes has the clout to get a stupid edict turned around and that CEB and others stockpile while they can just in case.

It is not just Barnes up against this solid Mono bullet issue and it could effect many smaller production makers in the future. In regard to feeding or not feeding I noticed that Woodleigh has just added a radial nose "option" to their Hydro Solid to help with feeding "issues". I can't tell but it appears the meplat on the Hydro is less than 60% in diameter. Now if this meplat design was not an issue then why in the world would Woodleigh offer this variant ? Offering both designs seems to make valid sense for the companies that want to sell their product to a wider section of the market, which we all know id pretty damn small to begin with. Besides Africa for hard skins and possibly Australia where else would the hunter use them ? Buy them while you can folks.

I have always been an advocate for the dissemination of factually correct ballistics science on forums like this and for this very reason !

If it is that the BATF imposed a restriction on Barnes and If it were done based on some reasons posted on this thread then the ruling makes no sense and could be fought based on assumptions based on erroneous ballistics science.

The first glaring error is that whilst FN projectiles penetrate deeper in visco-elastic targets ( and not quite for the reasons sometimes cited on AR) it does not translate to the same in ballistic vests, metal or even human skin

So in short if a person has a ballistic vest on the relative ability to defeat that vest would lie in the following order: Spitzer ogived solid then RN solid and finally FN solid.

The reason for this lies in the mechanical nature of the protective material and the way it reacts to insult.

So put simply FN's are less prone to be potential "cop Killers" than Spitzers under these circumstances.

In terms of ability to initially breach the outer skin whether it is the protective clothing, ballistic vest, vehicle "skin", or human skin the ability lies in the energy density of the projectile:

Here more than often the smaller diameter projectiles are better than larger diameter projectiles...... so a 160 gr 6.5mm solid monometal projectile would have far greater initial breaching potential than say a 458 monometal of similar shape.

The energy densities of 6.5 mm projectiles fired from standard commerical 6.5 cartridges exceed that of the 458 win mag and in some cases even the 460 Weatherby and they are by far better penetrators of ballistic materials. This is counter intuitive and many will find it hard to swallow, however that is how it is.

In terms of actual potential lethality and the criteria needed to be met for a projectile to be lethal on a human body there is no evidence to support the notion that a FN is more lethal than a ogived projectile.

If anything the ogived projectile may even be more potentialy lethal based on it's predicted behaviour. In fact one can contend it is more potentialy lethal based on the body size.

if I personaly were given the choice of having to be shot with a FN vs a Ogived solid I would opt for the FN as the chances of surving the shot would be greater in the case of the FN vs the ogived projectile.

As most of you probably know, Hornady has been selling their new Superformance loads for several calibers, including the 458 Winchester. The load for the 458 Winchester launches a 500 grain slug at 2140 fps. This definitely puts the 458 back on the playing field.

The increased velocity must be attributed to the new powders that have become available. Great news, to say the least.

The one problem that can surface with hand loading a short case like the 458 is a very compressed powder charge. This coupled with extremely hot temperature, could cause pressure to spike. It may definitely cause difficult extraction, which could be a problem if hunting an animal that may fight back. Other than that, I see no problem at all.

quote:

Originally posted by Dog Man:
In The Accurate Reloading Africa book, Terry BlauwKamp was very adamant and specific in that the .458 WM should never be handloaded for hunting in Africa. I recently emailed him to see if that was still his position, he didn't go into detail but confirmed that it was. 

How do you guys with experience feel about this?

I tested 458wm loads with AA2230, H4895, and IMR 3031 -fixed a typo here, which is often cited as an old favorite or standby (but it actually sucks for the 458wm.) Across about a 50*F temp change any temp induced velocity change is lost in round to round variance for AA2230 and for H4895, but IMR 3031 showed tremendous temperature induced variation.

No compressed podwer with Woodleigh 500gr solids or with NF flat nose solids at 2135fps and 2220fps, respectively, from my rifle.

I have killed 18 elephants with 500gr Woodleighs or NF flat nose solids. Other than the first elephant, which was killed with 500gr Woodelighs and a ~2050fps load, they have all been killed with H4895 or AA2230 loads at the velocities noted above. Penetration is excellent with the Woodleighs and phenominal with the North Forks.

JPK

Love the performance and tradition of the 458 WM...I'm having another built as we speak on a pre-64 Model 70 barreled action.

I run AA2230 with a 480 grain Woodleigh (special cannelure)made for the 458 WM with very mild compression . I shot 2 elephant with this load (2200fps) last year and had great results.
Frontal brain on a cow, slug recovered in the neck and a qartering side brain on a bull bullet under skin on far side of the neck. Both 1 shot kills.

Regards Stu

quote:

If it is that the BATF imposed a restriction on Barnes and If it were done based on some reasons posted on this thread then the ruling makes no sense and could be fought based on assumptions based on erroneous ballistics science.

Only if you are under the assumption that our gov't agencies operate using 4th grade logic, which they do not.

I wonder what his take is on hand loading for the 500 Jeffery. I tell you at $20 a round for factory ammo, I sure wouldn't be shooting it much! Once I became determined to stay with full power loads (570g TSX at 2300 fps) my handloads have been every bit as reliable as any factory rounds I have ever shot. They're more accurate too!