Thanks Skip,

This thread had just about died so I'm glad you brought it back. We have learned a lot doing the testing. I think Michael and I are lost now because we will have a hard time beating the #13. I guess now we just need to test more on game. If there is anything you would like us to explore let us know. We need something to test!

Sam

quote:

Originally posted by srose:
Thanks Skip,

This thread had just about died so I'm glad you brought it back. We have learned a lot doing the testing. I think Michael and I are lost now because we will have a hard time beating the #13. I guess now we just need to test more on game. If there is anything you would like us to explore let us know. We need something to test!

Sam

well the switch point is coming according to intel. Would be cool to have duplicate bullets in zinc that is cheaper and lighter for practice but keep the same volumes. Zinc is 85 cents a pound and a third the price copper but more volume obviously and a third the weight of lead.

quote:

Originally posted by srose:
Thanks Skip,

This thread had just about died so I'm glad you brought it back. We have learned a lot doing the testing. I think Michael and I are lost now because we will have a hard time beating the #13. I guess now we just need to test more on game. If there is anything you would like us to explore let us know. We need something to test!

Sam

Sam,

That might be a good thread to have here in DR land - one with field reports of CEB#13 in action, even those that have been posted elsewhere.

The other thought builds on Boomie's suggestion - exploration of bullets produced from less expensive materials to use for plinking/practice. Of course for may calibers there are Sierra and Speer offerings that are relatively inexpensive. The only problem with doing this would be that someone would buy the plinking version, try to use it on game for which it was not intended then complain about poor bullet performance.

CCMDoc,

That's a good idea. Should have reports from Aaron soon on his first elephant and buffalo he shot with the 577 and #13s. Michael said a few more guys are out hunting now so reports there also. I plan on going to Zim in Nov for buffalo and tuskless and you know I'll be taking a double. Probably a 500 or maybe my 470.

Sam

We have a great post coming from one of our own, 500 Nitro, Elephant, BBW#13s and some sort of double (forgive me I forget what sort of double-those things look alike to me you know), but I promised not to post until I get the full story, from him! Still waiting, I think I am going to have to bump his memory.

Then we have Lionhunter and Carl out now for elephant each with the 480 BBW#13 and then NonCons on all others, but that is in 458 Lotts. Then I forget some others that might be out?

M

Great!

Looking forward to reading of the results.

I'll post my own when we return from Namibia mid-November.

Hopefully I will do my part so that the .620 CEB#13 can do it's part on a big tusker.

Just got an email, my hunt was sold to someone else. I just wasn't fast enough on the trigger.

quote:

Originally posted by srose:
Just got an email, my hunt was sold to someone else. I just wasn't fast enough on the trigger.

Sam,

Talk with Karl and come with us

if YOU aren't fast enough on the trigger of a double ... I am in big trouble ...

Sam,

CEB BBW #13 in my .500 NE

Tried your load of 105 gr IMR-4350 with bullet seated & crimped over the top band. Barrels grouped ok, left group 1.5" higher than right . Group centers 4" apart at 25. Seated bullets out further. Crimped just under the front band. Groups PERFECTLY horizontal but still 4" apart. Velocity is ~2110 at 15 feet from muzzle.

I don't think I can get any more IMR 4350 in the case under that bullet...so am going back to R-15 with the longer seating depth to try.

Any more suggestions??? I do think felt recoil is much heavier with 105 gr of 4350 than with 95 gr of R-15 though.

J,

If your left barrel is left and right is right you might try the RL-15 and up it a little. One gun I have in 500NE regulated slower around 1960 fps. Kynoch out of this gun was that speed also. Every gun is different. If barrels are 4 inches apart at 25 yards you may not be able to get it to regulate with that bullet. I have two doubles that just won't come together but with one load and bullet.

I would like to see how well zinc holds up. I was guessing the white metal was a good distinction and if a hand loader can't distinguish that them Darwin will catch up sooner or later lol.
My guess is that zinc would mushroom a bit and be plenty fast. Add the tip in the non con and you could get some good distance out of them. Turn your double rifle into a non toxic rabbit gun.

quote:

Originally posted by CCMDoc:

quote:

Originally posted by srose:
Thanks Skip,

This thread had just about died so I'm glad you brought it back. We have learned a lot doing the testing. I think Michael and I are lost now because we will have a hard time beating the #13. I guess now we just need to test more on game. If there is anything you would like us to explore let us know. We need something to test!

Sam

Sam,

That might be a good thread to have here in DR land - one with field reports of CEB#13 in action, even those that have been posted elsewhere.

The other thought builds on Boomie's suggestion - exploration of bullets produced from less expensive materials to use for plinking/practice. Of course for may calibers there are Sierra and Speer offerings that are relatively inexpensive. The only problem with doing this would be that someone would buy the plinking version, try to use it on game for which it was not intended then complain about poor bullet performance.

Boomstick,

I heard you the first time. Send me some zinc and I'll make some bullets. I just don't see the point. Light pistol bullets work good for practice why go to the expense of making zinc bullets.

Sam

Awesome !!!!
My thinking is that made to the same volume and design it would make a better practice bullet. It would feed the same and keep the same charge without fillers ect. I'll have to find some 1/2" bar stock to send you. Zinc would make a better bullet than aluminum.

quote:

Originally posted by srose:
J,

If your left barrel is left and right is right you might try the RL-15 and up it a little. One gun I have in 500NE regulated slower around 1960 fps. Kynoch out of this gun was that speed also. Every gun is different. If barrels are 4 inches apart at 25 yards you may not be able to get it to regulate with that bullet. I have two doubles that just won't come together but with one load and bullet.

Sam,

I think I can speed it up a little with R-15...but I am maxed out for the 4350.

If they stay horizontal...they should come together with a little more velocity shouldn't they. I can get up to 2150 with R-15.

Michael and Sam:

Great work indeed guys I have been following this thread since I got on board with AR and I am amazed at the amount of time and effort that you have invested in this work. I must commend you guys for your patience and perseverance.

I am in the first stages of a developing an idea/project I might need your help with when I get back to the States and settle down again. Mean while I have couple of questions for you.

What would it take to make a bullet similar in characteristics and performance to the tremendously effective (IMHO) Barnes TSX bullet, incorporating your band method? I think it will be a smash winner since it will remove the barrel strain issue from the equation. The only complaint I am aware of, that people had against the Barnes bullets and at the same time it will give the same great performance the TXS are famous for.

The other question is, as silly as it may sound, it will irk me the most to try to reload a 20 rounds box of ammo and come up couple of bullets short. In other words what was the reason behind packing only 18 bullets in a box rather than 20?
I hate to think it is marketing gimmickry.

Malek
Good hunting/shooting and God's best

Hi Malek, thanks! Appreciate it. Would be happy to help on your project, if possible, so no worries.

In the beginning (HEH-Like the bible sorta) I wanted copper bullets for the 50 B&M and other .500s because of the "weight" about 5% or so more than brass. I was still thinking in a "conventional" inside the box manner. All the weight I could get for the buck. When working with the various copper HPs that JD and I had come up with at velocity the blades were shearing. I wanted that "barnes open blade" concept, and I was still thinking "Conventional" and was still INSIDE THAT BOX. Well what it came down to was the fact that it took an annealing to get the blades to hang on to the main part of the bullet. A process that is as I understand very expensive to do, and took some special machinery or ovens, or cookers or whatever the hell it took to do. So, I worked within velocity parameters and bullet weight to keep the blades. During test work I kept noticing how much extra wound cavity damage was done and extra trauma, and another thing, depth of penetration of the remaining slug. But still, it took a very long time, as I could not crawl out of that damned box, the lid was nailed pretty tight. I kept fighting however, until it finally dawned on me I was actually getting more trauma, and deeper penetration, and more tissue damaged without the blades as they sheared within wound channel, than I was if the blades hung tight! I had finally pushed the lid off the box, and stepped outside of it! I found that outside the box there was light, inside the box was still "Dark".

I had proven this in the test work, but now how about animal tissue, and even more important transfer of trauma. 13 Australian buffalo with the 500 MDM in 2009 showed me everything I needed to know. However, when I arrived on the Island, someone was still trying to shove me back in the box! I just knew I had to have a bullet that weighed more than 470 grs for a .500 caliber rifle and buffalo, so I had already planned to up the weight to 500 or 525 grs when I returned. This was until I shot the first buffalo, a great old bull, and he dropped at the shot, and two more quick ones to keep him down, and all three passed completely through, doing a tremendous amount of damage internally, and transferring more trauma than I had ever seen on an animal the size of a buffalo. Immediately I saw no need for a heavier bullet and that thought was abandoned forever, I had truly broken free of the box, the lid off forever.

I still had a problem however. When impacts below a certain velocity, the blades wanted to hang on, therefore remaining a conventional bullet. Still worked well, so I figured there was not much of a downside, but that was the lazy part of myself talking to me! Accept what you have, it's easier, and justify that! Well, still it bugged me, and I was not willing to lay down and quit just yet! It took some time to get around to it, and an excellent fellow to help me and work with me, Dan at CEB, and the fact that Brass gave us less barrel strain than copper or equal, and that brass was more brittle and if the cavity was of the right depth and width then the brass would shear at any reasonable impact velocity we would use on dangerous game, and here we are today!

I have used barnes TSX, and they are very good bullets, when they introduced the bands some years ago, all their problems were solved as for accuracy and fouling. In the early years of the barnes X it was very common the blades would shear. Most of this was going on with the small bores and high velocity. Everyone was still inside the box and complained, demanded conventional performance, and did not understand the trauma that shearing properly can transfer, and of course the small bores don't act like a big bore either, so barnes had to do something to that copper bullet to get the blades to hang tight, annealing them. And that solved that. And pretty sure myself with small bores that is the thing to do with copper bullets. Brass reacts different, sending blades outward away from center as it shears, so different trauma inflicted. We will see with some of these BBW#13 55 gr 223s we now have. I have pal of mine I loaded some for his 223 Super Short at 3700 fps, he will shoot something or several things over the next few weeks to test the issue.

Not sure that really answered your question #1, but that is my take on it anyway!

Question #2 is much easier to answer! CEB has about a million boxes made for their normal line of bullets. Myself and Sam introduced CEB to big bores. With most all the boxes being designed to hold 50 small bore 308-338s and such, and having a blue million of them, it did not make sense to add that extra cost to get two more, or seven more bullets in a box. Dan asked me about that right in the beginning, and I told him it would not matter much and just use those boxes up until they were gone and not be overly concerned about it. So if anyone is to blame it's me for that! 18 bullets would fit in the boxes with the dividers up to .510 caliber, the 585s and 620s have to be put in plastic sleeves as even 18 would not fit with a divider. So CEB is trying to work with what they have already in place, which I encouraged them not to spend extra $$ on boxes, and to put extra effort into the quality of the bullet! So no, it's not marketing gimmickry at all, it's just working with what is already in place. So I beg those to work with it, anyway you are going to want more than one box of these after you realize the performance you get.

Michael

Michael:

I respect everything you have done with your research. I also think that you and Sam have come up with the finest solid to ever hit the market in the BBW#13. However, with respect to the non con, this is where we part ways. I guess I am too damn old to climb out of the box. I think the Barnes TSX in it's current form is the best expanding bullet available. I also think that the Woodleigh Hydro is a magnificent bullet. I just can't wrap my mind around the idea of the shedding of the petals. I guess I am too old school. I want my bullets to hang on to as much weight as possible and I don't really believe in the notion that the petals being shed are creating much in the way of secondary trauma. For me, it's a TSX on top of a couple of BBW13s but know this, I respect you opinion and all the work you have done.

Hey Michael

I still need some .468 bullets. Anyone out there who can make Dan's run worthwhile??

J and Malek,

I sent you two a thank you yesterday but I must have hit close instead of post, sorry. Anyway J I think you are on the right track and if they don't come together at 2150 or so try slower like 1975 and see what happens.

Malek,

Thanks and I'm glad you have gotten something out of what we have done. I used to like the TSX also but didn't like all that bearing surface, better than the original X bullet for sure. I think Michael and I have proved that bands can be smaller and fewer and still stablize fine. I still have a favorite double bullet in the original 2 band but it isn't for everyone so that's why 4 bands now. A non con in copper would be good but after seeing how the brass blows I'm liking it better, best of both worlds.

Dave,

Try a non con on game and you will change your mind I think.

Sam

http://www.zincbarstock.com/index.aspx
SRose
I think I found a source for the zinc bar stock.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Bush:
Michael:

I respect everything you have done with your research. I also think that you and Sam have come up with the finest solid to ever hit the market in the BBW#13. However, with respect to the non con, this is where we part ways. I guess I am too damn old to climb out of the box. I think the Barnes TSX in it's current form is the best expanding bullet available. I also think that the Woodleigh Hydro is a magnificent bullet. I just can't wrap my mind around the idea of the shedding of the petals. I guess I am too old school. I want my bullets to hang on to as much weight as possible and I don't really believe in the notion that the petals being shed are creating much in the way of secondary trauma. For me, it's a TSX on top of a couple of BBW13s but know this, I respect you opinion and all the work you have done.

Dave

You are a gem! I appreciate those words, thank you very much. And I take absolutely no offense whatsoever to your reluctance concerning the NonCons and the way they work, and respect your opinion on that as well. I had a very hard time with it myself, and it took a long time for me to come around and climb out of the box.

While I don't place as much importance on the TSX as you, I do not disagree that it is a fine bullet. And when they introduced the bands, it really came to the light. In fact, the TSX has become my favorite bullets in most all the small bore rifles that I am a party to, and it has performed excellently in all of those, on the range and in the field. In many of my own B&Ms if there is a suitable TSX then it does a great job, and I would not hesitate to use it. For instance, I really like the .458 350 gr TSX as a lighter bullet in my 458 B&M. It's performance is unequaled in a "Conventional" role. It's accuracy is on par and equal to the CEB and North Forks I use in the NonConventional role. It's great to have both worlds at your feet, for your choosing I think! I like good bullets, and the TSX is in many cases the best of the conventionals. I have not abandoned Swift completely either, still a great bullet. But since I have a special relationship with North Fork, I would just as soon replace the Swifts with conventional North Forks, in my mind the North Fork having advantages over the Swift in it's conventional role. So you see, while I do in fact promote the NonConventional, I too have not "Completely" abandoned the "Conventional" role.

Having said that, I have seen the trauma inflicted by the big bore NonCons and the animal reactions to taking them. To sum it up easy, it's rather impressive. Now this is not in any attempt to convince you of anything, I don't mind if you are not convinced at all. Having some experience over the last 15 years with shooting a few things, I can tell you for a fact I have not ever seen as much trauma inflicted upon animal flesh with a conventional as I have a NonCon.

This might be a little ugly, my apologies.

This is a frontal shot on a buffalo and the damage done by a 460 gr BBW#13 NonCon, the blades were still very close to the center wound channel. As you see, it's nearly split in half.



This is a frontal shot on buffalo also, with the 458 B&M, 420 gr NonCon at 2250 fps. Again, I surmise that the blades were close to center bullet doing a lot of damage, this hole is 1.5-2 inches all the way through.




This was a broadside lung shot on a buffalo, this is the exit of nothing but the remaining slug of a .458 420 NonCon.



Below you see a double exit on a waterbuck shot at 106 yards with a 425 gr .500 caliber BBW#13 Carnivore. One exit, is the bullet, the smaller one, and the larger ugly exit is one of the large blades that sheared off, trauma inflicted was totally awesome and destructive.




And this last one is the top of my crocs skull shot with a 458 B&M and the 420 NonCon at 2250 fps, range 30 yds. Damned near blew his head completely off, top jaw/head was nearly torn off from impact and we actually had to do some arranging to put the top of the jaw/head in place for photos.




In no way meant to convince you, just to demonstrate is all. You and I will never have an issue, no worries about that!

HEH....
Michael

Michael and Sam:

I want to thank you both for your gracious responses and for taking the time to explain things out (already I just learned a thing or two), also for offering to help with my future project. Believe me I will take you up on that offer when the time comes. I bet it is going to be very interesting and a lot fun

Michael, in the beginning, I want you to Know that I don't mind getting outside the box, if I am convinced with the idea/evidence shared with me and you have done here a darn good job, I am almost there but I do still have couple questions before I jump out.

First I must say that I do appreciate you sharing your buffalo hunting experience with the non con bullets and the effect they had on those animals ( I don’t mind the pix), assuming the majority of them were broadside shoots.
What were the velocities of the 500?
Did any of these bullets hit bone and if yes what kind of a bone, shoulder, ribs etc and what kind of penetration you got on the non broadside shots?
When you say that the petals ended up traveling close together are you talking few inches apart verses say a foot or so?
What kind of a weight percentage is retained in the shank of the non con?

Regarding the trauma, I am familiar with the concept having used and seen the Burger VLD bullet in action on large ND animals like elk, moose etc the devastation and the speed that they killed with is phenomenal and the non con do act in a similar manner pretty much. Though they don’t completely explode like the Burgers but do retain their shanks and penetrate and keep on plowing through. I am sold on that concept for non DG animals except for lion, leopard, and bears.

My quark here is buffalo, I want to hunt them so badly I can taste it if I may say so and I am looking for a soft or non con that does tremendous damage while penetrating all the way through.
Now if the penetration is what you say it is and if the answers to my questions will be what I am hoping for, you have got yourself a new believer brother jumping out of the box.

Despite the 18 count / boxes

Best regards


Malek
Good hunting/shooting and God's best

Malek,

If you have to have 20 buy a box and I will send you 2 more. If buffalo is what you want to shoot I think you won't find a better bullet than a non con. Michael proved that I think. Also my buddy Doug shot two buffs last year with the other non cons and said his buffalo died faster than any he has ever shot. Like I told Michael a while back these bullets are going to make buffalo hunting boring.

Sam

Mabe armor plate the buff to make it more interesting

All that blood and gore is disgusting. Think you could warn us readers before posting such ilk?

If I were an African tracker I'd be worried about these bullets making me redundant !

I love bullets that let the "claret" flow, makes them follw-ups (if needed) so much more managable.

Amen for the Non-con !

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Truccolo:
If I were an African tracker I'd be worried about these bullets making me redundant !

I love bullets that let the "claret" flow, makes them follw-ups (if needed) so much more managable.

Amen for the Non-con !

Hard to argue with the efficacy of that much tissue disruption.

Malek

In the 500 MDM I used the following BBW#13 Combo--460 BBW#13 NonCon at 2450 fps and the 500 BBW#13 Solid at 2400 fps, I actually slowed both down from 2500 fps, as that was just not needed. I crunched shoulders, legs, ribs all manner of bones on the buffalo, both the 420 BBW#13 NonCon in 458 at 2250 and the 460 .500 crunched and munched through everything and anything in their way.

Then Noncons on any broadside shot exit, does not matter bone, stomach anything. On frontal shots we recovered one 458 420 BBW#13 NonCon on the other side of the stomach, the 460 .500 a little further on frontal shots.

Blades shear at 2-3 inches inside the body cavity, if on a frontal heart shot those blades are still close enough together with the center bullet to do the damage you see on the buffalo hearts above. If say you were shooting a rear angled shot, then the blades have already dispersed into the lungs and any other vital tissue before reaching the heart, and then you will only have the center remaining bullet that goes through. Lungs the same, on the lung that is facing their was always a 2 inch hole on that lung, then blades have dispersed and the second lung gets the remaining bullet and blades further apart away from center. I forget the exact weight of the remaining bullets, but they are always close to the same, within a grain or two.

You see, there is one hell of a big difference between a NonCon and a Berger! No comparison at all. The berger turns into "Burger" and small pieces the entire bullet blows all to hell. The NonCon has the remaining slug that penetrates deeper than any conventional possibly can.

OK, everyone needs a benchmark to go by, and my benchmarks are 458 caliber buffalo bullets! 450 and 500 Swift A Frame, 500 Woodleigh Softs, 500 Nosler Partitions, and so forth, I never used a Nosler or Barnes TSX in the field, but I have shot more than a few buffalo with the Swifts and Woodleighs, so I know what they will do out of a 458 or 458 Lott. So those are my benchmarks when testing. I know a 500 Swift A Frame and 450 Swift A at 2250-2300 fps will penetrate from 22-24 inches in my test medium, I know a 500 Woodleigh Soft will penetrate 20 inches, a 550 Woodleigh Soft 22 Inches, and a 500 Nosler Partition 19 inches. A 420 gr .458 NonCon at 2250 fps will penetrate from 26-28 inches, a 450 NonCon at velocity will penetrate 28-30 inches, a 460 NonCon from the 50 B&M will do 28-30 Inches and from the 500 MDM the 460 will do 37 Inches. And I also know how much the 450-500 Swift, and the 500 Woodleighs, and the two NoNCons penetrate on buffalo too, and it correlates. You get more penetration with the NonCons than any Premium Conventional, period, end of story.

Trauma inflicted is more with the NonCons, reactions up front all show this.

I also see this effect with the North Fork Cup Points--the ones that EXPAND in the B&Ms, and they give tremendous penetration. I would not have a bullet around me that is not capable of penetration. Some like 465HH are a bit scared of penetration, I am a bit scared of not having penetration!

Now whether you want to jump out the box or not, I leave it to you, all I can do is tell you what I know, to believe it, go give it a try. If not, then we can still be pals, and no issues at all. Anyway, I ain't in the bullet business so it won't hurt me one way or the other.

My only concerns is to report to you guys what I have done, experienced, and what is successful for me, in the hopes only that it might make you more successful.

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by CCMDoc:
All that blood and gore is disgusting. Think you could warn us readers before posting such ilk?

Makes me want to either puke, or just jump in a roll around in it like a dog, not sure which?

My doubles (600NE, a 450/400, and a 375FL) have all seemed to like the CEB #13 solid as well as the CEB Non-Con.

Here is an example from a quick jump Upstate to get a few shots in:


Saw the same kind of results from the CEB#13 solid in the 375FL.


As many others have found, the Barnes TTSX does a pretty good job as well in terms of accuracy and regulation - in fact almost every load I tried with them went like this:


I know Dave Bush likes them and I haven't decided whether to use the 375 NOn-Cons to back up Pop on his leopard or to go with these Barnes TTSX.

The best part of Michael and Sam's work is the variety of great stuff that has now become available and that I now have a solid for the 600 in which I have absolute confidence!

Doc, that's some mighty fine shooting I tell you! I can't even see something 50 yds, much less worry about hitting it, maybe with my truck? LOL.......

Boys we live in good times regarding fine bullets, that is no doubt! Ya'll know I am more than a little pissed at barnes over this solid business, but regardless of that there is nothing I can say ugly about the TSX. It does the job. Of course I won't use one now, at least not in public....HEH HEH.... But it is a fine bullet. In the early years the barnes X frustrated me more than you can fathom! I wanted that terminal performance that it exhibited time after time, but in near all the calibers I was trying to shoot it in the accuracy was totally unacceptable! And there was nothing I could do, I have shot 100s and 100s of X bullets trying to get a combo that would shoot to no avail, finally gave up. Then those damned bands and all those accuracy issues went away immediately. It was magic and just goes to prove without doubt what a tiny little nothing of a change can do in bullet tech! Add bands and years of accuracy issues disappear overnight. End of story! Absolutely fascinating to me.

Of some of the things we have discovered the BBW#13s, the solids and noncons in the same holes at 50 yds! Not supposed to happen, weight differences you know, but same length bullet, same bearing surface trumps weight! Wild stuff! These and many other things we have learned in the last few years.

Doc, that 600 is RTG! (Ready To Go) Just Excellent!

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:
Of some of the things we have discovered the BBW#13s, the solids and noncons in the same holes at 50 yds! Not supposed to happen, weight differences you know, but same length bullet, same bearing surface trumps weight! Wild stuff! These and many other things we have learned in the last few years.

Doc, that 600 is RTG! (Ready To Go) Just Excellent!

Michael

Michael,

Yep - the 825g Non-Cons and 900g Solids go into the same spot using same brass, primer, powder and charge.

I know this for a fact since the last time I was out I loaded a bunch of 600NE with both. Randomly shot them and all went to the same place.

I love these CEBs. Great work Micheal, Sam, Dan and whoever else helped design and produce them.

Yeah, I am mighty happy with the 600!

Doc

Man I am waiting to hear how one of those 825 NonCons react with buffalo flesh!!! Crunch and munch I tell you!

I have never seen a .620 do so well as with these bullets, I am hard to impress with Ultra Bores, I am impressed.

M

Sam:

I really appreciate the fact that you are willing to through in couple of extra bullets to close the deal. Now since you did that I have to commit to buy me at least one box of the non con, the problem is deciding which caliber to start with.

my friend couple of bullets plus or minus is not the issue here especially after Michael graciously took the time to explain why you had to go that route, it makes sense and probably I would have done the same.


Michael:

I do really thank you for explaining and answering my questions regarding the velocities and behavior of these bullets and what kind of obstacles they had to overcome in their path. I love that stuff and I love to learn more about the effect that the bullets have on the animal and all the details associated with it, even looking at those gruesome pix that might have turned some folk’s stomachs.

As to being convinced or not, I guess it is more like it that I wanted to hear the details and satisfy my inquisitive mind and love to learn more from people like Sam and yourself and who ever out there who has really experimented with this bullet than being convinced.
As for the jumping in and out of the box was kidding around, as you see evident by the big grin that I put after at the end of the sentence.

I think not only me but a lots of folks out there who read these posts have benefited from this exchange of info, after all that is what AR is all about exchanging info and experiences and talking about our favorite subjects. Trying to enjoy our self and a very friendly atmosphere at least this is the way I look at it.


Doc:

I can’t wait to hear the reports of how these non con perform on them buffs and would not mind couple of pix especially split up hearts pix.


Malek
Good hunting/shooting and God's best

Well gentlemen,

As much as I want to satisfy your hunger for the blood and gore resulting from the use of a .620 CEB Non-Con on Cape buffalo, I regret to inform you that when in Namibia I will be using a .620 CEB#13 solids on elephant. The Non-Cons will be used in my small-bore 375Flanged on leopard and plains game.

BUT as I think about it ...

why not take a handful of .620 Non-Cons along and after my elephant is down (wish me luck, boys ) giving them a try ...

I think I just may do so ...

Doc:

Well I wish you all the luck that it takes to bag that jumbo with some beautiful tusks hanging down his lips.

I think it will be a great opportunity to try out them .620 non cons and find how far they will go. I don’t think you will spoil a lot of meat and I think there will be a lot left, make sure though to take lots of pix.

Question, what is the difference between the TTSX and the TSX, I bought me some 470 TSX and I am reluctant to try them in my double.

Good luck.


Malek
Good hunting/shooting and God's best

quote:

Originally posted by malek:
Doc:

Well I wish you all the luck that it takes to bag that jumbo with some beautiful tusks hanging down his lips.

I think it will be a great opportunity to try out them .620 non cons and find how far they will go. I don’t think you will spoil a lot of meat and I think there will be a lot left, make sure though to take lots of pix.

Question, what is the difference between the TTSX and the TSX, I bought me some 470 TSX and I am reluctant to try them in my double.

Good luck.


Malek
Good hunting/shooting and God's best

Thanks Malek!

The TTSX have a plastic tip, TSX is same bullet without it. I have no concerns using either in my Verney-Carron or my Merkel since both manufacturers wrote me they were perfectly safe when I asked.

Doc:

Thanks for the reply; it is good to know that they don't have ill effect on modern doubles at least according to both of the manufacturers you have mentioned.

I bet that 375 Magnum Flanged is a sweet shooter, for sure an accurate one. I was wondering what kind of velocities are you getting with your 250 TTSX load and have you tried any of the 300 grainers and gotten the full theoretical 2450 ft/se velocities with any?

Best regards

Malek
Good hunting/shooting and God's best

quote:

Originally posted by malek:


Michael:

I do really thank you for explaining and answering my questions regarding the velocities and behavior of these bullets and what kind of obstacles they had to overcome in their path. I love that stuff and I love to learn more about the effect that the bullets have on the animal and all the details associated with it, even looking at those gruesome pix that might have turned some folk’s stomachs.

As to being convinced or not, I guess it is more like it that I wanted to hear the details and satisfy my inquisitive mind and love to learn more from people like Sam and yourself and who ever out there who has really experimented with this bullet than being convinced.
As for the jumping in and out of the box was kidding around, as you see evident by the big grin that I put after at the end of the sentence.

I think not only me but a lots of folks out there who read these posts have benefited from this exchange of info, after all that is what AR is all about exchanging info and experiences and talking about our favorite subjects. Trying to enjoy our self and a very friendly atmosphere at least this is the way I look at it.

Thanks Malek, and very correct, this is an incredible place for like minds to exchange information and hopefully we all learn something from it that will make us more successful. The Terminal Thread upstairs from here is truly a "Bullet Think Tank", so great folks coming together to bring new concepts, ideas, and bullets to play. And what fun it is.

Good to check up there as well, I don't always post things here, but there are some things within the next day or so that pertains to all big bores, including doubles, so don't forget to check in upstairs as well.

Michael

Michael, I too want to thank you for the research you have done concerning bullets. Your work is very extensive and I believe should be considered the gold standard in bullet comparison as you are independent of the manufacturers.

As you know from some other threads, I am a bit pissed about the Barnes solid marketing BS line they are feeding us and am thinking seriously about switching solids to the CEBs.

I must admit however, that I haven't quite been able to make the leap away from the TSX. I haven't shot any other type of expanding bullet than the X since about 98. You're right about the bands with the TSX. Seems like all the accuracy problems went away overnight but I find that the reputation still lingers with many who refuse to admit that the X and the TSX are NOT the same bullet. It seems to me that the X bullet concept was so far ahead of current bullet technology when introduced that the smear campaigns began almost immediately. I'm not in the bullet business either but I am obviously biased toward the TSX. I use them in my 500 NE Double as well with absolutely NO worries. I will be receiving my second double from Ken in a couple of weeks, a 9.3X74R Chapuis and have already loaded 100 rounds of 286 gr TSX's with various load combinations to test for which variation my new gun will digest properly. Looking forward to it!!

It may be a lot to ask of you at this point but is there any way we can convince you to test the larger TSX other than the 350gr 458. Such as the 500 gr in .458. I would like to know both the actual barrel strain numbers as well as your opinion on penetration and expansion destruction capabilities compared to the Non-Con.

The pictures you posted are certainly impressive but I wonder about the performance of the Non-Con from the opposite entry standpoint. If I understand correctly, your entries were either frontal or broadside and therefore the heart and lungs were encountered quickly while the petals were still traveling close together. One of the reasons I like the TSX so much is that I feel that with a large enough caliber, I can successfully drive that bullet from stem to stern or rather from stern to stem if needed and still reach the vitals with the bullet intact and doing massive damage. What is your opinion of the Non-Con performance on a rear raking shot concerning the petals traveling "together" enough to do more damage than a solid (implying the affect from the remaining core). Not talking about taking a poor shot but sometimes you get what you get such as in follow up shots. I am also interested in how the Non-Con's petals would perform in a "Point of the Shoulder" shot, especially at close range. I think one of the reasons I'm having a hard time accepting the petals breaking off is that Randy Brooks always considered the TSX or X to have performed poorly if a petal or more were lost. I haven't been able to shake that concept at this point.

Again, whether you can test the full sized TSX or have any interest in doing so, let me restate that I appreciate the work you've done to date and I value it's objectivity and quality.

Cheers,

Todd