From 505G

quote:

Same as Graeme Wright has done huge amounts of testing for years, hence the quality of his books.

I have Graeme's 3rd edition and nowhere can I find any references to testing barrel strains using mono metal bullets.

To the contrary from page 230.

"Recently I have experimented with some brass solids in a 500 nitro. These have the driving bands as described above and seem to have the same characteristics as a normal lead cored soft point. Recovered bullets clearly show the main bullet shank has not touched the bore and that the metal of the driving bands has easily been displaced by the rifling. More work and pressure tests need to be done in this area for double rifle use, however it does show promise. Non toxic rifle projectiles may well be part of our future so I believe that experimenting in this direction is essential. ("Shooting the British Double Rifle" Graeme Wright Page 230)

The second sentence is interesting in that he compares the mono metals to softs and not what he terms "hard" projectiles which includes traditional solids with steel beneath the copper such as the Woodleighs.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike70560:
Rusty,

You are still missing the boat. The testing that provides the only "empirical evidence" was done by Sam and Michael at their own expense. There is nothing stopping anyone from spending the money to purchase the equipment and run their own test if the do not believe or dispute the results.

All of the testing Michael and Sam has done has been to benefit us, the hunters. I performed some testing (not even 1 percent of what MM has done) so I have an idea of the time and money Michael has expended.

To Sam and Michael thanks for your efforts!!

Thanks Mike70560! I'll just stand here on the dock and wave!

I wish people making, testing, marketing these bullets every success. I may even use a mono bullet in a bolt action rifle I own. I will never use any monolithic bullet in my vintage Double rifle.

quote:

Michael
Just because you don't "own" or receive any benefit doesn't mean you aren't "promoting" these bullets.

Rusty

To a degree I do concur with you, I do promote good bullets. I do my best to be objective in these things, but it is getting harder to do so the older I get, and the more experience I obtain.

First and of foremost importance to me is "Terminal Performance". The BBW#13s were designed right from the beginning to be the best terminal performance solid that has ever existed. And I am not going to lie, I think it is. Everything can fail that has mans hands involved, no doubt. We continued to tweak performance by continuous test work, and even today I continue to do so to a small extent. We tweaked many different kinds of bands for lower pressures, and of course this lead to lower barrel strains. I will not sit here and tell you I have no prejudices, as it would be a lie. I do.

I have used many bullets in the field with great success. Swift A Frames for years, Woodleigh Softs in many different calibers, Barnes Banded Solids- FN, excellent Solid. Barnes TSX, Hornady Interlocks, Noslers of different sorts, and probably more I can't even think of at this moment. All good bullets, but with their own limitations.

In the last few years I have really been working with the North Forks a lot, and have replaced many of the bullets I have used in the past with the North Forks. Such as the Premium Bonded. I believe it to be more versatile than the Swift A or the Woodleigh Soft. So today, if I were to use a bullet of this type, it would be a North Fork. Barnes turned traitor to all hunters by going backwards to a RN Mono Banded. And then, after touting the FN since 2004 or so as being superior in terminal straight line performance, so they could sell more bullets, found people out there to say that RN were actually better bullets! Two faced Liar bastards, and traitors to hunters and shooters around the world. So I don't support a damn thing Barnes has, as Barnes is no longer the old Barnes. If someone asked me if the Barnes TSX is a good bullet, I would agree that it is a dandy bullet on all counts. Ask me about their RN Solid, and if you like them, you are not going to like what I have to say. And I will say it to anyone too, I don't care.

North Fork has changed their old nose profile to a newer one on all their solids. It is a vast improvement over the old nose, which was good, this new nose profile gives about 20%-25% more penetration, and on top of that it is dead straight from beginning to end. Excellent bullet, and I am fortunate to have a huge supply of them currently for my .500 caliber rifles.

North Fork has an excellent CPES--Cup Point Expanding Solid. We used a lot of these on the Australian buffalo a few weeks ago with OUTSTANDING SUCCESS. In fact, the biggest and best bull I have ever taken in Australia fell to ONE .474 caliber 425 gr CPES, drove straight through both shoulders and took everything out in between. This is just an extreme bullet for trauma and for penetration.

Today, from all the test work, and field work I have done in the last few years, I am personally leaving many other bullet companies behind, as I find I tend to want to use the best bullets I can in the field, to insure my own success in the field, after all, that is what began every single bit of this test work, it was for me personally, I just brought the rest of you along for the ride. Read the first page of the Terminal Performance Page, this holds true today as well! Today, I can accomplish any and ALL missions I have in the field with two bullet companies North Fork Technologies and Cutting Edge Bullets. Not only are these the finest bullets available in my opinion, but both of these companies support and listen to what we as hunters need in the field, and that goes a long way with me. I don't see any of the other bullet companies doing much in the way of really getting to the bottom of bullet performance, and see most of them getting to "Their Bottom Line". Which I cannot fault the Bottom Line--it has to be profitable, we know this, but give us a good product, and the profits will come. Don't feed us a line of SHIT like Barnes has done, that might work with the ignorant, but not with me.

Promote, yes very true to a degree. But I don't think in the light that you see it as.

Michael

quote:

In addition, he keeps mentioning "HIGHEST barrel strains, right with the Woodleigh FMJ"
yet what evidence is their that the level it is at is a problem ? We don't here of guns being damaged, H&H still recommend using Woodleigh's

505G

Well if I had consistently said that North Fork and CEB gave the lowest barrel strains in all tests, then I would be accused of Hocking off bullets, or promoting bullets, or a Bullet Farmer, or so on and so forth.

The barrel strain work is just what it is, there is nothing I can do about it, no way to manipulate it and it repeats on all work done here, regardless of caliber, cartridge, barrel rifle and so forth.

We did find the Woodleigh FMJ at the top end of Barrel Strain in all tests. There was only a couple of times that anything exceeded it in barrel strain, and that was the Old style--NO BANDS, Barnes Mono solids I had here, and The Old Style Barnes X- No bands. Cast Bullets did not do well in any barrel strain tests either, all very high. Other than that, I am sorry to tell you that the Woodleigh FMJ had it's place at the top each time.

So if I say otherwise, I would be telling a lie! What would you have me do?

We used the Woodleigh Soft as a Benchmark Bullet in all the tests! Most all double rifle shooters I know would consider it a "Safe" bullet to shoot? I suppose I am being 1 Eyed because the Woodleigh FMJ gave more barrel strain in every single test conducted, somehow that is my fault?

I don't know what would be safe or not be safe! All I know is that I can tell you what consistently gives less barrel strain than another bullet. Barrel Strain work done here is just a comparison of how much a bullet expands the barrel as it passes a point in that barrel, 4 inches from the muzzle. Loads were reduced, so chamber pressures did not interfere with those readings, and we got only the amount of strain that occurred as the bullet passed that point, and expanded the barrel.

How much is safe? I don't have a clue. The best I can do is tell you Bullet A gave more strain than Bullet B. And that is it. Nothing more to it.

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:


Interesting tidbit. Do a google search for OSR or Over Stressed Rifling. Check the first 10 pages or so of results. What you'll find is that 95% of the results are attributed to 2 people. Mac here on AR and his other name of Dougaboy on NE (I think that is it, sorry Mac if I don't have that one just exactly right), and 500 Grains both here on AR and NE. There is also Cal's one statement on it from the article he referred to above.

Todd,
With all due respect, what you say in the above quote is misleading.
The OSR subject has actually been discussed at length on the NE.com forum, in several different threads.
There were a lot more people involved in those discussions, than the two you mention.

Graeme Wright also discusses the OSR subject in detail, in the 3rd edition of his book.