I have be led to believe and seen noted on a few threads that it is not advisable to use monometal solids are for that fact X bullets in double rifles. I suppose it is believed that the difficulty is swaging the bullet to the barrel dimensions will expand the barrel for a finite period and perhaps detaching it from the center rib destroying the regulation.
I know that the current Barnes X design and NF bullets appear to have groves cut into the shank to relieve some pressure but most people contributing to these threads call loading for Swifts and Woodleighs which have lead cores.
Is there reason for concern using monometals in double rifles?

EZ

It is a concern for me. I think that you could damage the thin barrels of your vintage double rifle by firing monolithic solids.

Having said that, I think that every person has a right to shoot whatever kind of bullet he wants. If you need to shoot Monolithic Solids, then more power to ya! They aren't going down the bores of any of my 3 doubles! Just my opine!

Barnes are not the bullet for doubles. There grooves are too far apart.

Swifts A Frames are questionalble as well. Some makers say go ahead, but few.

North Fork and GS Custom are driving band bullets with many thin driving bands spaced close, but sufficiently far apart that there is room between the bands to accomodate all displaced material. The shanks of both the NF and GSC are under land diameter, and so so not engrave - and do not cuase stress on the ither the barrels or the ribs.

Barnes shanks engrave, and this is the issue.

GS Custom garuntees to repair your rifle should their bullets damage it. That is quite a garuntee and reflects their confidence in their product, imo.

I think Woodleigh solids are harder on doubles than NF's or GSC's and Eoodlreigh softs the easiest on barrels.

JPK

My understanding was that the Woodliegh solids are just a full jacket on a soft bullet, same bullet, one with a full jacket, one with an open jacket.

Anyone know for sure?

quote:

Originally posted by Shawn Massey:
My understanding was that the Woodliegh solids are just a full jacket on a soft bullet, same bullet, one with a full jacket, one with an open jacket.

Anyone know for sure?

The solids/FMJ are steel-jacketed over lead with a gilding metal jacket:

http://www.woodleighbullets.com.au/FMJ3.html

The softs do not have the steel jacket:

http://www.woodleighbullets.com.au/Weldcore3.html

Actually Hornady's new expanding dangerous game bullets do have a steel jacket. They stick to magnets! However, the core of the bullet is still lead!

While I have no experience with GS bullets, the NF's have been shot thru my doubles and work very well....I would have no problems shooting them at all. When I say NF's...I mean the FP and Cups with the bands.

Gary
DRSS
NRA Lifer
SCI
DSC

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
Actually Hornady's new expanding dangerous game bullets do have a steel jacket. They stick to magnets! However, the core of the bullet is still lead!

Correct, but he was asking about the Woodleighs.

Have you been able to shoot the new Hornady's yet? I saw them at DSC and they look pretty good. Heck I even thought I saw you at their booth earlier, but I was stuck on the phone.

Charles,
I have a bunch resized for my .408 Hollis which is waiting for a sight modifcation. Should be ready in a couple of weeks, Then off to the range!

I have three boxes of the .410 expanding bullets. Would you like me to send you a few to try?

Thanks, but I am just curious to see how these work for you and the others trying them. I would like to see them succeed and I appreciate that they have tried to make the softs and solids close to see if they will shoot to the same point.

Swifts A Frames are questionalble as well. Some makers say go ahead, but few.


Hi JPK,

I must have been asleep at the switch here as I think this is the first time that issues have raised with Swift bullets. I am surprised that this is indicated to be a problem.

Thanks

Old hat:
That thick partition in the A-Frame is a tough bolus going down the bore, full groove diameter, like a solid copper shank. It is not even undersized like the X-bullets. The lead-filled rear portion of the bullet slugs up behind that partition, no room for displacement of the copper on engraving except compression by the barrel and pressure elevation.
Something's gotta give, and it might be the barrels, ribs, joints.

Neither A-Frames nor Bear Claws are as easy on DR barrels as the Woodleigh soft or GSC FN&HV, or North Fork FP&CP.

"Progress!"

quote:

Originally posted by RIP:
Old hat:
That thick partition in the A-Frame is a tough bolus going down the bore, full groove diameter, like a solid copper shank. It is not even undersized like the X-bullets. The lead-filled rear portion of the bullet slugs up behind that partition, no room for displacement of the copper on engraving except compression by the barrel and pressure elevation.
Something's gotta give, and it might be the barrels, ribs, joints.

Neither A-Frames nor Bear Claws are as easy on DR barrels as the Woodleigh soft or GSC FN&HV, or North Fork FP&CP.

"Progress!"

Rip has gotten it all. I think the ribs and their joints are most likely where the problem, if one, will show. 450NE No2 shoots them and has no problems, but I wouldn't risk shooting them when at NE speeds the Woodleigh softs work just fine for when you need a soft, especially the PP's, which ar stiffer, if available in a particular size. The new Hornadays might end up fine too.

BTW, North Fork softs have solid rear shanks without driving bands, much like the Bearclaws, and unlike their driving band flat nose solids and cup points.

JPK

JPK & others:

Not sure what North Fork bonded soft points you are looking at, but my .375 300 grain softs definitely have drive bands on the shank.

I am not good at cutting and pasting links but got to www.northforkbullets.com and look at bonded soft points. Looks like drive bands on the shank to me.

I am looking at one in my hand now. Not sure what you are looking at.

Regards,

RCG

RCG,

Take a look at the photo in this link: http://www.northforkbullets.co...ore/264-120-ss.html/

If you look at the portion of the shank without the driving bands, you will see the land engraving. The 264-120 photo really shows the engraving, which is why I picked it as an example, but you can see it well here on the 300gr 375 bullet as well:
http://www.northforkbullets.co...ore/375-300-ss.html/

Here is the 458 450gr bullet link: http://www.northforkbullets.co...ore/458-450-ss.html/ the lands seem to extend further forward but there is still the engraving on the shank.

But so much less on this 458 bullet and other larger bore bullets from 416 up that I wonder if they've altered it from previous versions of smaller cal bullets. I owe Mike an email and I'll ask him if he still recomends staying away from the softs if you're loading for a double rifle. Maybe the 458's are ok in a double?

BTW, in case you hadn't noticed or tried, if you select and click "bullets" from the top of the home page in your link and then click on a photo of the bullets in the thumb nail you will see a slightly enlarged photo, clicking twice on that photo gives a view large enough to see the engraving well. (Or just double click on the photos in my links.)

JPK

The North Fork softs are grooved, not banded.
Micro-grooved, so to say, such that they do not have all the stress relieving metal displacement room that is afforded by the distinctly different driving bands on the North Fork FP and CP monometals.

But hey! That is not all!

The softs have some full-diameter smooth shank above the grooves. This acts like the A-Frame Partition. That blows it for double rifles, even though the North Fork solid shank with "micro-grooves" may not be as bad as the smooth-sided-full-diameter TB Bear Claw solid shank.

One thing to remember about the North Fork Solids is they are designed so that the shaft of the bullet does not touch the inside of the barrel AT ALL. The driving bands are the only part of the bullet that touches the barrel, and there is enough space between the bands so that they can compress into the grooves behind them.

If www.gscustom.co.za shoot accurately in my old Brit DR that's what I'm going to shoot.

I explained why in another active thread titled A Bit Of Progress. My choice is based on logic

as I understand the facts to be.

Guys, for what it's worth, I have the newest Barnes manual and, with respect to the new Barnes Banded Solids, it says:

"Multiple bands or rings cut into the bullet's shank prevent excess pressure, eliminating concerns about damaging fine double-rifle barrels."

I don't think I would be concerned about using them in a double of recent manufacture. Wouldn't they be easier on your barrel then a Woodleigh which is a copper clad steel bullet? I would have a lot of concerns about shooting a steady diet of steel bullets in any rifle including the new Hornaday DG bullets but in a double of recent manufacture I don't understand why any good hunting bullet like a Swift would be more of a concern than it would be in a bolt rifle. In a vintage gun sure but why would there be a problem with say something like a Swift in a new gun?

Dave

Barnes are not suitable for double rifle barrels!!!

And it isn't a matter of pressure, excess or not. It is a matter of the radial expansion of the barrel as any bullet passes though a bore, any bore.

The difference with doubles is that the radial expansion must be kept to a minimum so that the rib and wedge joints between the barrels suffer least.

Barnes bullets are hard and provide no place for the material displace in engraving to go. The North Forks and GS Custom do, just compare photos and you can see this. After photos are better but either will do. You can easily see that the shank of the NF's or GSC's is under land diameter and remains unengraved, opposite of Barnes, where the shank is taking the engraving.

Barnes do not compress in diameter and so lengthen either, while the steel jacket Woodleighs essentially swage down in diameter while growing in length, reducing radial expansion required by their passage. The swaging is evidenced by the tit of lead which will have been squeezed our of the steel jacket through the hole in the base and which will protrude from the hole.

When it comes to Partitions or A Frames, think of them as short Barnes bullet. Same problem and same effect, too much radial expansion, too had on rib and wedge joints.

JPK

JPK:

I just gotta ask... do you know of anyone who ACUTALLY HAD A PROBLEM shooting Barnes Banded Solids in their double? I mean the Barnes manual SPECIFICALLY SAYS that they ARE SUITABALE FOR USE IN A DOUBLE and while they might be harder than a TSX they are one hell of a lot softer than a Woodleigh solid some of which are specifically designed for double rifle calibers or one of the new Hornaday DG steel jacketed solids!

Dave

Dave,

Yes, on the Barnes issue, through this forum and NitroExpress.com, but not first hand - but then I know personally - as in have met in person - maybe only a couple of dozen guys who hunt with double rifles. Problems include seperated ribs, "overstressed rifling", and some reports of split barrels. But ask 400 Nitro Express, he has a lot more information regarding problems resulting from shooting hard bullets. Or make a call to gunmaker JJ Perodeau at Champlins and ask him, he has seen the problems first hand and has had to repair rifles damaged by using hard bullets. Ph# 580-237-7388.

Barnes bullets are harder than Woodleighs, not softer, radialy. Think of the Woodleigh solids as merely cup and core bullets with the end of the cup partially folded over to form a heel to keep the core in place. That is what they are, albeit with a steel cup. Squeeze them, as happens when they leave the chamber and enter the bore, and the jacket compresses, squeezing out the core, as evidenced by the tit of lead projecting from the hole in the base. The sides of the jacket are relatively thin, while the front is thick in the center, to help prevent deformation.

BTW, Woodleigh solids are hard bullets too, and can cause problems in double rifles, just not as hard as Barnes. Woodleigh steel jacket use should be limited.

Hornaday's old steel jacketed solids were similar to the Woodleighs, but with a larger hole in the base. I believe, but am not sure, because I haven't looked at one in hand, that the new Hornaday solids are made the same way as the old steel jacketed Hornadays. Perhaps someone else who has them will chime in?

I gotta ask, why use a Barnes solid in the first place? Taking double rifles out of the equation, there are several options that are significantly better. Moreover, two of those better options - at least - are easier on a double rifle than even a cup and core soft point.

One of those two bullet makers who make better performing bullets than Barnes goes one better than Barnes and gaurantees that their bullets are safe for doubles, and backs that up by offering to foot the bill to repair any rifle damaged by their bullets.

JPK

I don’t have any of Hornady’s new DGX or DGS bullets for comparison of the base to their older steel jacketed bullets.

However I did enquire to Hornady as to the thickness of the copper cladding on their .410” diameter copper clad steel jacketed DGX and DGS bullets. I received a response from Hornady’s technical staff on 02/18/2009 stating that the copper cladding is approximately 0.020” thick. This thickness of copper cladding is sufficient to assure that the typical English .400” bore/.410” groove barrel would engrave the copper cladding of either bullet without touching the steel jacket.

I didn’t ask about the other diameter DGX and DGS bullets but assume (and we all know what that means) that the copper cladding covering the steel jackets is of similar thickness. Just email Hornady at tech@hornady.com and ask about your specific caliber bullet.

quote:

I don’t have any of Hornady’s new DGX or DGS bullets for comparison of the base to their older steel jacketed bullets.

However I did enquire to Hornady as to the thickness of the copper cladding on their .410” diameter copper clad steel jacketed DGX and DGS bullets. I received a response from Hornady’s technical staff on 02/18/2009 stating that the copper cladding is approximately 0.020” thick. This thickness of copper cladding is sufficient to assure that the typical English .400” bore/.410” groove barrel would engrave the copper cladding of either bullet without touching the steel jacket.

I covered this with Hornady long ago, and Capoward is correct. CIP standard bore/groove diameters are .400"/.410" for both .450/.400s. The gilding metal jacket over the mild steel envelope is .020". The rifling doesn't come into contact with the steel, as the jacket is too thick for the rifling to reach it.

Same even with a .470 built to the screwed up SAAMI specs (Federal doesn't seem to have gotten anything right) which specifies .459" bore rather than CIP's .467". Rifling still isn't deep enough to reach the steel.

A further concern that some seem to have is that a lead core, steel jacketed solid is too hard to easily conform to the bore, and I'm convinced that's false as well. The lead core compresses easily, permitting the bullet to "give" to fit the bore - obturate - which a mono cannot do.

I've owned several double rifles with non-standard (smaller than standard) groove diameters that I've loaded for, and still do. Sizing down off-the-rack standard diameter jacketed bullets several thou in Corbin reducing dies before I load them is a constant for me. Steel jacketed solids sail through the dies (compress) just as easily as a thin-jacket cup and core soft point. If they didn't, I wouldn't use them. Rusty sizes down Hornady steel jacketed DGS and DGX, as well as their non-steel interlock, to .408" for his .400, and has the same observation.

With respect to the comments about the Swift A-Frame mentioned above, one of my doubles is a .400/.360 with .363" grooves (standard is .367"). Since this rifle was regulated with 300 grain, and 9.3 bullets in that weight are hard to come by, I bought some 300 grain 9.3 Swift A-Frames when they became available, as I'm fond of the A-Frame. Steel-jacketed 286 grain 9.3 (.366") solids sail through to .363" very easily. I never got an A-Frame to enter the die. After re-lubeing several times and adding a steel pipe cheater to the press handle, I quit when a crack opened in the press top, which is made from 2X12. Not suggesting that test is scientific, but having already wrecked one double with Barnes X, it was enough to convince me to give them away to a friend with a 9.3 bolt rifle. It's the only jacketed bullet I've ever encountered that was so hard that I couldn't size it down. It's a wonderful bullet, but I'm not comfortable with it in a double rifle.

Steel jacketed solids of essentially the same design as the current Woodleighs and Hornadys have been in regular use in double rifles since Kynoch introduced them in the flanged nitro chamberings in 1950. The barrel damage problems appeared with the non-compressible monos.
---------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by 400 Nitro Express:

Not suggesting that test is scientific, but having already wrecked one double with Barnes X, it was enough to convince me to give them away to a friend with a 9.3 bolt rifle. It's the only jacketed bullet I've ever encountered that was so hard that I couldn't size it down. It's a wonderful bullet, but I'm not comfortable with it in a double rifle.

400:

Okay, now lets put the vintage rifles aside for a moment. Do you believe that Barnes new Banded Solids are unsuitable for use in a new manufacture double like a Heym, Merkel, or a Kreighoff? This answer is important to me because I expect to have a K gun in a couple of weeks. For practice loads I was planning on shooting plain old Hornaday interlocks for my soft loads and was thinking about loading a few banded solids to see if they would regulate. It's hard for me to believe that a new gun with recent manufacture German steel can't stand up to a grooved banded solid!

Dave

My experience with double rifles is not confined to pre-war British rifles. Barnes does not make a bullet that I would fire in any double rifle that belonged to me, excepting their "Original" line.

A better question is what do you expect to gain at Nitro Express velocities? Steel jacketed Woodleigh and Hornady (their DGS is nothing more than their re-introduction of their old steel jacketed solid from 10 or so years ago) solids have a long, proven track record, as did the Kynochs before them. Monos might have a slight advantage at wide open .416 Weatherby velocities, but at Flanged Nitro Express velocities, any advantage is mental.
--------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

That thick partition in the A-Frame is a tough bolus going down the bore, full groove diameter, like a solid copper shank. It is not even undersized like the X-bullets. The lead-filled rear portion of the bullet slugs up behind that partition, no room for displacement of the copper on engraving except compression by the barrel and pressure elevation.
Something's gotta give, and it might be the barrels, ribs, joints.

Neither A-Frames nor Bear Claws are as easy on DR barrels as the Woodleigh soft or GSC FN&HV, or North Fork FP&CP.

Thanks RIP,

Does this also apply to Nosler Partitions?

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
400:

Okay, now lets put the vintage rifles aside for a moment. Do you believe that Barnes new Banded Solids are unsuitable for use in a new manufacture double like a Heym, Merkel, or a Kreighoff? This answer is important to me because I expect to have a K gun in a couple of weeks. For practice loads I was planning on shooting plain old Hornaday interlocks for my soft loads and was thinking about loading a few banded solids to see if they would regulate. It's hard for me to believe that a new gun with recent manufacture German steel can't stand up to a grooved banded solid!

Dave

Dave,

I don't think the steel is the question for modern barrels. Most likely the barrels will be of better quality steel than a vintage rifle, if only because of modern steel making. But the solder joints are going to be the same weak points regardless of the age of the rifle.

Regarding performance advantages of mono bullets at NE speeds, its not the material but the shape that gives an advantage to GS Custom and North Fork. Their braod flat nose truncated cone design provides substantial penetration advantages over round nose bullets or small meplat abreviated round nose designs.

The Barnes offers no performance advantage over the Woodleigh, and the Woodleigh compresses radialy while the Barnes does not.

But the GSC and NF offer substantial performance advantage over the Barnes and GSC and NF are driving band solids that are easy on a double rifle, even easier than Woodleighs.

You want the most penetration available, in the bullet easiest on your double rifle? Load a NF or GSC.

Barnes looses to NF and GSC on both the on game performance side of the equation and the hard on rifle side of the equation.

We may find that the larger diameter Hornaday solids, with their decent size meplats, though of abreviated round nose shape, may be able to approach the penetration of the NF and GSC and provide the reliable performance that steel jacketed solids give. But their penetration advantages over round nose Woodleighs, remains to be seen.

Either way, you've got four bullets to choose from, all of which will provide equal or better performance than the Barnes solids, all of which are easier on your double rifle than the Barnes.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
400:

Okay, now lets put the vintage rifles aside for a moment. Do you believe that Barnes new Banded Solids are unsuitable for use in a new manufacture double like a Heym, Merkel, or a Kreighoff? This answer is important to me because I expect to have a K gun in a couple of weeks. For practice loads I was planning on shooting plain old Hornaday interlocks for my soft loads and was thinking about loading a few banded solids to see if they would regulate. It's hard for me to believe that a new gun with recent manufacture German steel can't stand up to a grooved banded solid!

Dave

Dave,

I don't think the steel is the question for modern barrels. Most likely the barrels will be of better quality steel than a vintage rifle, if only because of modern steel making. But the solder joints are going to be the same weak points regardless of the age of the rifle.

Regarding performance advantages of mono bullets at NE speeds, its not the material but the shape that gives an advantage to GS Custom and North Fork. Their braod flat nose truncated cone design provides substantial penetration advantages over round nose bullets or small meplat abreviated round nose designs.

The Barnes offers no performance advantage over the Woodleigh, and the Woodleigh compresses radialy while the Barnes does not.

But the GSC and NF offer substantial performance advantage over the Barnes and GSC and NF are driving band solids that are easy on a double rifle, even easier than Woodleighs.

You want the most penetration available, in the bullet easiest on your double rifle? Load a NF or GSC.

Barnes looses to NF and GSC on both the on game performance side of the equation and the hard on rifle side of the equation.

We may find that the larger diameter Hornaday solids, with their decent size meplats, though of abreviated round nose shape, may be able to approach the penetration of the NF and GSC and provide the reliable performance that steel jacketed solids give. But their penetration advantages over round nose Woodleighs, remains to be seen.

Either way, you've got four bullets to choose from, all of which will provide equal or better performance than the Barnes solids, all of which are easier on your double rifle than the Barnes.

JPK

JPK your wasting your breath!

JPK, I will defer to you guys on this. I meant no disrespect and I did not mean to be argumentative. The reason I was interested in the Barnes banded solids is because that is what I shoot in my bolt rifle and they are easy to get in the calibers that I need. I KNOW that there are concerns about shooting A-Square Monolithic solids in double rifles but I was unaware of those same concerns with the Barnes Banded Solids. The A-Square bullets are made of naval bronze and are staight whereas the Barnes bullets are banded and are a softer copper/zinc alloy. The bullet manufacturer says they are fine. Barnes is now making Banded Solids specifically for double rifle cartridges like the 450/400, 470, 500, and 577. However, the place to pose the question is with the manufacturer of the rifle. I just got off an e-mail off to Krieghoff. If I get anything back from them, I will pass it on to you. You guys have expressed some legitimate and well reasoned concerns and I respect your judgement and experience. I would not use them unless Kreighoff said it was okay.

Dave

Dave:

I understood where you were coming from. Transitioning to doubles can be a bit of a challenge, especially for an experienced bolt rifle shooter. Double rifles are "different" in enough ways to produce a definite learning curve.
------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
Barnes bullets are hard and provide no place for the material displace in engraving to go. The North Forks and GS Custom do, just compare photos and you can see this. After photos are better but either will do. You can easily see that the shank of the NF's or GSC's is under land diameter and remains unengraved, opposite of Barnes, where the shank is taking the engraving.
JPK

JPK, without regard to your broader points concerning which bullets may be suitable for use in double rifles - in my experience with Barnes Banded Solid bullets, they are engraved by rifling differently than you describe.

See the photograph below, which is a fired .509" 570 grain Barnes Banded FN Solid that I recovered last year from an elephant. The bullet is largely of smaller diameter than the bands, and only the latter are engraved.

quote:

Originally posted by Don In Colorado:

quote:

That thick partition in the A-Frame is a tough bolus going down the bore, full groove diameter, like a solid copper shank. It is not even undersized like the X-bullets. The lead-filled rear portion of the bullet slugs up behind that partition, no room for displacement of the copper on engraving except compression by the barrel and pressure elevation.
Something's gotta give, and it might be the barrels, ribs, joints.

Neither A-Frames nor Bear Claws are as easy on DR barrels as the Woodleigh soft or GSC FN&HV, or North Fork FP&CP.

Thanks RIP,

Does this also apply to Nosler Partitions?

Don,
It must.
Just not as badly with the Nosler Partition as
with the Swift A-Frame.
The Nosler is just not built as stoutly as the Swift.
The Nosler partition is thinner. Not as thick a "bolus."

I would not use either in a DR.

However, it seems that the pure copper and bonded lead of a Swift makes for greater barrel friction somehow, than the gilding metal and non-bonded lead of the old Nosler Partition.
The same load with a Swift A-Frame might give higher pressure and lower velocity than the same load with a Nosler Partition.
I have seen indications of this in bolt action rifles.

For softs in a double rifle, stick to:

1. Woodleigh Weldcore for serious work.
2. Barnes Originals, for plinking.

For solids in a DR:

1. GSC FN, banded copper monometal.
2. North Fork FP (Flat Point), banded copper monometal.
(the North Fork CP (Cup Point), banded copper monometal is intermediate between a soft and a solid in penetration, and ditto easy on double rifle barrels)
3. Woodleigh FMJ steel-jacketed, gilding-metal-covered "Solid": Use only enough to check for POI matching soft POI in load development, then only for serious work. Make every shot count.
You have a round nose here, not an FN solid.

Hornady's new bullets with gilded steel jackets are in the same boat as Woodleigh's FMJ.

Just going easy on the double rifle barrels, ribs, joints.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
Barnes bullets are hard and provide no place for the material displace in engraving to go. The North Forks and GS Custom do, just compare photos and you can see this. After photos are better but either will do. You can easily see that the shank of the NF's or GSC's is under land diameter and remains unengraved, opposite of Barnes, where the shank is taking the engraving.
JPK

JPK, without regard to your broader points concerning which bullets may be suitable for use in double rifles - in my experience with Barnes Banded Solid bullets, they are engraved by rifling differently than you describe.

See the photograph below, which is a fired .509" 570 grain Barnes Banded FN Solid that I recovered last year from an elephant. The bullet is largely of smaller diameter than the bands, and only the latter are engraved.

No contradiction of JPK by MR's photo.
The terminal part of the bullet is a long shank that is taking the engraving. Another big bolus, worse than the A-frame!!!!!
There is still way too much stress
on the double rifle barrel-rib joints by the Barnes "Banded" Brass solid shown!
And it is a half-assed-ogived FN!
Not the best choice for a solid in DR or BA.

My two cents worth; the "original" NF soft points were not designed with doubles in mind (as opposed to the solids that were). By that I not only mean the basic external design but also the internal design that sets the performance parameters. I do not know for certain that they would be bad for a double but also considering the "job" they were designed for, I did not see the reason for any risk and always steered any prospective user another direction. For instance, the 458-450 was made for top end velocities of 2200 to 2600fps. Why bother trying to stuff one in a Nitro when that is totally out of it's (the nitros) best performance range anyway.

NOW, the new owners have much better machinery (and therefore more time) than I had and are more flexible than I ever could be on different designs. They are also looking at offering more calibers AND modifying some of the existing ones to function better in doubles if the customer so chooses. I know for a fact that softs for 470N and 500N are under investigation and maybe redoing (more correctly, adding) the 458 for the same reason. The new designs would be based on a two diameter design that preclude barrel contact with the ogive section of the bullet, leaving only the shank to contact the barrel (see the pics of the 458-350FP designed for the 45-70. It is a two diameter and you can see there is no ogive contact).

If there is any interest in such items, I suggest that you contact NF at info@northforkbullets.com and express your interest. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Mike

Mike, good to see you on AR again.

Howdy Tony. Yup, now that I don't have to work 14/7, I might have more time to visit (Actually I do work near 14 now but it's also a week on and a week off, big difference).

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
Barnes bullets are hard and provide no place for the material displace in engraving to go. The North Forks and GS Custom do, just compare photos and you can see this. After photos are better but either will do. You can easily see that the shank of the NF's or GSC's is under land diameter and remains unengraved, opposite of Barnes, where the shank is taking the engraving.
JPK

JPK, without regard to your broader points concerning which bullets may be suitable for use in double rifles - in my experience with Barnes Banded Solid bullets, they are engraved by rifling differently than you describe.

See the photograph below, which is a fired .509" 570 grain Barnes Banded FN Solid that I recovered last year from an elephant. The bullet is largely of smaller diameter than the bands, and only the latter are engraved.

MR,

See RIP's post for a partial response. I'll conintue by adding that the Barnes aren't really banded, think of them as grooved. There is the long shank at the bore's groove diameter begining below the ogive, where engraving begins. That long shamk has grooves.

Except that fist grove, none are sufficiently wide emough to accomodate the engraved material, and the bullet's material is'nt soft enough to be displaced into the groove in any event. This is evidenced by the lack of displaced material in the grooves.

And then you get to the rearmost section of the shank, which hasn't any grooves at all.

Moreover, each section of the shank in front of a groove is both too wide (and too hard) to be displaced rearward.

I wish I could post a photo of a North Fork for comparison. (Perhaps you or another can? Its beyond my ability, I tried to copy one from their web site a dozen times and failed.) A photo of a North Fork will show numerous groove diameter, thin bands and clearly display displaced band material in the area between each band.

The rifling marks will show that bullet material is soft enough for displacement, that there is sufficient room between the bands to accomodate all of the displaced material and shank diameter is below land diameter.

A photo would be worth a thousand more words trying to describe the very significant differences.

JPK

JPK:

What do you think of Hawk softs for a double?

Dave

JPK, I believe that I understand what you are saying concerning the Barnes Banded FN Solid bullet's construction.

And it is definitely hard.

I would not use it in a double rifle.

But I don't shoot a double.