I am getting tooled up to start reloading for my 450/400 3.25" double (bores slugged to .411) and have noticed that Woodleigh does not make a .411 400 grain FMJ, but does make .410 FMJ. If I want to use a soft in the right barrel and a FMJ in the left won't the POI be affected by the different diameter bullets?

Or is the solution just to have a FMJ load and a soft point load and hope the POI is acceptable when I load soft right FMJ left?

Opinions and help appreciated...

Use the .410, that minor diff in diameter will make no difference, or shouldn't. Most people
couldn't measure the difference.

You should have no problem getting them to regulate together.


You could probably even get away with .408
if you really had to, some guns are fine, the odd one not.

Why not use Woodleigh Hydro's, give you
the best of both worlds !!!

Thank you gentlemen, I'll try both the standard Woodleigh .410 FMJ and .410 Hydro and use whichever regulates the best.

How have the Hornady .410 soft and FMJ performed in the field?

Nah, .001 don't make any difference in this application. I was going to say "in this case" but didn't want to pun. I use Hornadys in my 450-400 Krieghoff and Ruger, both .410s and .411s; the latter made for the .405 WCF which really has a groove diameter of .413, which never made sense to me. I have only used the Hornadys on hogs, which it flattened. My DR does not know the difference in soft vs FMJ; only weight.

There is no appreciable difference between .410 and .411 in my experiments and in the ones JJ performed on my latest rifle. Although, I did think that Woodleigh did make .411 solids. I'll check when I get home.

Dutch

I had CEB turn me .411 dia 400gr SLs and 370gr NCs for my 400H&H. Give Dan a call and see what he has on the shelf. You might want to ask whether they will work at 450/400 velocities, the 450/400 has a working velocity I believe of 1800-2200 and the 400H&H 2200-2450. Not quite sure what the shear point is for the NC's.
For practice rounds look at Hawk Bullets they have a good selection of .411 dia you might ask them to put a cannuler on the bullet for you also Hornady makes a 300gr RN that is inexpensive and may regulate for a reduced load for practice..
Good Shooting

For really cheap, and mild practice rounds try some 210gr pistol bullets over 25 to 30 grains of Trail Boss. That will be several grains below the maximum as suggested by the powder maker and will give you between 1,500 and 1,800 fps with bullets that are 30 cents each instead of 3 dollars each. They probably won't regulate right but they will let you get a lot of shooting in to get really familiar with your rifle.

Why not use Woodleigh Hydros? Well, I have used them in a few rifles, but even though I do like them, there is something just special, magical, nostalgic about a traditional round-nose Woodleigh... and they bloody work, too! My mate killed a bull with one Woodleigh solid through the shoulders (from my double) - at the shot, the animal stumbled forward and sommersaulted, and didn't make more than five metres, dead with that one shot!

I could not agree more with BenKK. There IS something special about the traditional Woodleighs. I spent a week in Darwin and visited with Geoff MacDonald of Woodleigh and he's a real fine gent. I flew back with 14 boxes of his traditional bullets--split between my gun case and checked bag. No problem in Darwin. When rechecking my bags in Sydney the ticket agent's reaction to the bullets was the same if I had a severed head in the gun case. All the logic in the world could not convince her bullets were not loaded ammunition. Long story short, she had me put them in my other checked bag--now at nearly 90 pounds weight. I had to do this, she told me, because if a thief took the rifle they could kill someone if the bullets were packed in with the rifle.

All turned out well and Woodleighs remain my bullet of choice. This summer, on three buffalo and two hippo, solid weight retention was 899 of 900 grains and the soft's retention was between 885 and 893 grains from the original 900 grain weight for my .600.

Hydros work, no doubt about it, and they may be the hottest bullet out there, but I love tradition. I guess that is why I shoot and hunt only with old doubles from England or Scotland.

Cheers, mates.
Cal

We should have never given them the vote....

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
We should have never given them the vote....

Truer words have never been spoken!

Dahav, the only question not answered is what rifle do you own? If it is a vintage rifle you should stick with traditional bullets, I believe the Woodleigh hydro is a monometal which could be harmful to old bores.

Lee440:

A very good point. Yes,it is a vintage rifle, but I understand the hydro is ok in older rifles? I believe Woodleigh claims that.

The last thing I want to do is damage the rifle...

Barring any firm evidence that the Hydro is safe in older rifles, I'll just go with the .410 Woody FMJ.

Are any of the Hornady .410 bullets even worth considering?

quote:

Originally posted by lee440:
Dahav, the only question not answered is what rifle do you own? If it is a vintage rifle you should stick with traditional bullets, I believe the Woodleigh hydro is a monometal which could be harmful to old bores.

Lee

Incorrect.

Woodleigh Hydros are fine in old guns,
of course you should slug the bores.

Yes, even though I know geoff from Woodleigh well, I was skeptical but they are fine and
I would use them no worries. I also know of
people who use them in high end Hollands as well.

DAHAV
Slug your bores to make sure and match up
the Hydro's to suit.

I have used them in my 500/465 in the past
- and, I have a tight / slightly undersize
bore in that gun and the gun is still fine.
(I knew it was slightly undersize before
I shot them).

Hope that helps.

The Woodleigh 410 grain RN solid will put significantly more strain on your barrel than the Woodleigh Hydro. Both are usually safe, baring an incorrect bore diameter..

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by lee440:
Dahav, the only question not answered is what rifle do you own? If it is a vintage rifle you should stick with traditional bullets, I believe the Woodleigh hydro is a monometal which could be harmful to old bores.

Here we go again! The Woodleigh FMJ as well as the Hornady DGX and DGS produce the three HIGHEST barrel strains tested, in all calibers across the board. The CEB monometals, both the Non-Cons and BBW#13 Solid produce the LOWEST barrel strains tested. So if the "traditional" Woodleigh FMJ produces the HIGHEST strain and the CEB monometal produces the LOWEST strain on barrels, why should one stick to traditional bullets in vintage rifles? Not to mention that the CEBs will vastly outperform the Woodleigh "traditionals".

They probably are all safe, but let's keep the statements accurate.

Here is 26 pages or so of reference material:

http://forums.accuratereloadin...804/m/1201069141/p/1

Todd,
Just wondering, sir. Is there any empirical test data from sources other than your own?

Thanks,

Rusty
Good question.

I would also like to see other data.


"Significantly more strain".

Well, FMD, how many old double rifles have been buggered because of it ?

Sweet FA

Geoff from Woodleigh has done his own strain gauge testing when TRYING to replicate the issue of OSR.

I think he used a 458 barrel and kept turning it down and firing various diameter bullets through it.

do you honestly think Geoff would make a bullet
without testing it both in rifles and in the field and put it to market ?

Anyway, it doesn't seem to affect the market.

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
Todd,
Just wondering, sir. Is there any empirical test data from sources other than your own?

Thanks,

Rusty, the data I linked to is not my own! It was developed by Michael458 and Sam Rose here on AR. It appears very comprehensive and extensive to me, as well as objective and repeatable.

Have you seen any empirical evidence showing "traditional" bullets to produce less barrel strain than the bore rider monometal bullets on the market today? I haven't but if you have a reference to some, by all means, please post it as I'm all about forming opinions based on data and not opinions that may or may not have a valid origin.

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:
Rusty
Good question.

I would also like to see other data.


"Significantly more strain".

Well, FMD, how many old double rifles have been buggered because of it ?

Sweet FA

Geoff from Woodleigh has done his own strain gauge testing when TRYING to replicate the issue of OSR. I think he used a 458 barrel and kept turning it down and firing various diameter bullets through it.

do you honestly think Geoff would make a bullet
without testing it both in rifles and in the field and put it to market ?

Anyway, it doesn't seem to affect the market.

Nigel,

Are you sure you're not talking about the test Michael and Same did here on AR. They turned down a 458WM barrel to the thickness of 20 sheets of typing paper, then fired STEEL monomental bullets through it. The result, NO OSR!

Link to that test:
http://forums.accuratereloadin...821078581#2821078581

And even further into the test:
http://forums.accuratereloadin...281002681#8281002681

But yea, if you look at Michael and Sam's data, they tested the Woodleigh Hydros as well. They were well below the Woodleigh FMJ, Hornday DGS and DGX; in every caliber tested! I would have no problems shooting the Hydro bullets in my doubles.

No, Geoff did a test well before you, quite a few years ago when OSR was first talked about.

He just wanted to check and did so as he has the
facilities and machines to be able to do it.


Re Woodleigh FMJ's, you forget that Geoff has to make them to the original profile. If strain was such an issue, you would have had problems with guns from year 1900 onwards.

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:
No, Geoff did a test well before you , quite a few years ago when OSR was first talked about.

He just wanted to check and did so as he has the
facilities and machines to be able to do it.


Re Woodleigh FMJ's, you forget that Geoff has to make them to the original profile. If strain was such an issue, you would have had problems with guns from year 1900 onwards.

Nigel (and Rusty),

Well before me? Guys, I was NOT, repeat NOT involved with the testing Michael and Sam did here on AR. They live on the East Coast. North Carolina I believe it is. I live in Texas. A couple of thousand miles away from them. They did all of the tests here. I just read their work, then like all the other fellows here, ordered some of the bullets they tested, shot them on the range, then took them to Africa and had great success!

I appreciate you guys wanting to give me the credit for Michael and Sam's work, but it wasn't me! I've got no dog in the fight other than wanting to use the absolute best bullets available.

Well, it's debatable that they are the best bullets available !!!

That you say they are is your view, others
may have a different view.

Strain on barrels, the difference is miniscule
in the scheme of things.

I've knowingly fired Woodleigh Hydros in a tight barrel without a problem and also tight traditional bullets in a double. Both guns are fine.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
Todd,
Just wondering, sir. Is there any empirical test data from sources other than your own?

Thanks,

Have you seen any empirical evidence showing "traditional" bullets to produce less barrel strain than the bore rider monometal bullets on the market today? I haven't but if you have a reference to some, by all means, please post it as I'm all about forming opinions based on data and not opinions that may or may not have a valid origin.

. . . you mean like more than 100 years of successful usage in rifles of varying steel qualities?

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

Have you seen any empirical evidence showing "traditional" bullets to produce less barrel strain than the bore rider monometal bullets on the market today? I haven't but if you have a reference to some, by all means, please post it as I'm all about forming opinions based on data and not opinions that may or may not have a valid origin.

In the scheme of things, does it REALLY matter ?

A MJHines has pointed out, 100+ years of use.

It really is like Michael and Sam are making a mountain out of a molehill and the snow ball set of down the hill and now can't be stopped.

Show me where this slightly extra "strain"
causes a problem and I'll start listening.

For the miniscule number of FMJ's that most people fire in a lifetime, it is a worry over nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

Have you seen any empirical evidence showing "traditional" bullets to produce less barrel strain than the bore rider monometal bullets on the market today? I haven't but if you have a reference to some, by all means, please post it as I'm all about forming opinions based on data and not opinions that may or may not have a valid origin.

In the scheme of things, does it REALLY matter ?

A MJHines has pointed out, 100+ years of use.

It really is like Michael and Sam are making a mountain out of a molehill and the snow ball set of down the hill and now can't be stopped.

Show me where this slightly extra "strain"
causes a problem and I'll start listening.

For the miniscule number of FMJ's that most people fire in a lifetime, it is a worry over nothing.

Nigel, you seem to be getting yourself confused here. Firstly you say the test data done here on AR was done by me, but after Geoff at Woodleigh, when I didn't have anything to do with the tests at all. Not my tests, not my data. Now your implying MY statements are saying one type ISN'T safe for use in doubles? Sorry for the circular reference but go back and read my post here:

http://forums.accuratereloadin...741043191#1741043191

Notice where I said they are " all probably safe "?

I'm not the one saying one should "stay away" from a certain design! Lee is the guy who said "you should stick with traditional bullets, I believe the Woodleigh hydro is a monometal which could be harmful to old bores" in a vintage rifle. His words, not mine. Just like Michael and Sam's tests were theirs, not mine. Even you, 2 posts later stated "Lee, Incorrect" and went on to explain how the "Woodleigh Hydros are fine in old guns". Your statement, not mine! So at that point we seem to have been in agreement. I even stated that I would have no problem using the Hydro in my rifles!

"Does it REALLY matter?" you ask? Well ... I don't know Nigel. What do you think? If not, there should be no reason to "stick to traditional bullets in vintage rifles", right? If not, there should be nothing to the OSR myth, right? So where do you stand on the issue at this particular moment? Again, let's keep the statements accurate. That's all.

But as to minuscule numbers of FMJs shot, if we are generically speaking of solids, I'd say I shoot slightly more solids in my big bore doubles than expanding bullets. If we are being specific as to FMJs, yep, the number I shoot ARE minuscule. More like Nada, Zip, None, etc. I prefer a better penetrating flat nosed bullet such as the CEB or North Fork. Maybe even the Hydro!!

Jines ... No sir, I would say the 100+ years of use you cite would be anecdotal, not empirical!

Rusty asked if I had other sources of EMPIRICAL data. I, in return, asked if he had EMPIRICAL evidence to the contrary! Keep it accurate!!

BTW, I'm thinking of coming through Houston toward the end of next week. Are you planning to be around then and can you make a trip to the range? If so, I'll bring the 500 and 9.3.

Where do I stand on the OSR issue ?

Firstly, OSR is a totally separate issue to
Woodleigh's.

I reckon it occurs for a range of issues,
some being:-

Soft metal
A combination of metal, rifling type, bullet type.
Oversize bullets in an unslugged bore with any of the factors above.
Temperature ?

I've seen a 404 Bolt gun that was OSR'd. You wouldn't have believed it
with the thickness of the barrel.

It happens so infrequently, I don't think it is an issue
and since no one can prove what causes it, until they do
why worry otherwise we just end up chasing out tails.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

BTW, I'm thinking of coming through Houston toward the end of next week. Are you planning to be around then and can you make a trip to the range? If so, I'll bring the 500 and 9.3.

That sounds perfect. I will make sure I have some ammo loaded for the Holland, Lang and the Manton so you can play with them.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:


That sounds perfect. I will make sure I have some ammo loaded for the Holland, Lang and the Manton so you can play with them.

There's no doubt about it, some of you guy's live a charmed life.

Rhodes

Nigel,

I think we are having two completely different conversations here.

Just a quick note, I also do not believe in OSR! It's a non issue. Never been proven. You can check my previous statements on this issue. I've been consistent on that opinion. Hell, if you want, I'll even post the Sasquatch picture again!!

But the discussion I'm trying to have with you is in reference to Lee stating that one should "stick to traditional bullets" in a vintage rifle and more specifically he stated that "the Woodleigh hydro is likely to damage old bores".

The entire reason I jumped into this discussion was that once again, we see the old wives tale of the monometal bullets being unsafe for use in double rifles being pushed. I've seen two specific statements of why. 1) OSR and 2) breaking of the solder joint. The research Michael and Sam conducted, showed empirical data indicating that monometal bullets with the bore rider design as we see on all of the modern monos, including the Woodleigh hydro of which you are a fan, to produce LESS barrel strain than some of the "traditional" designs such as the Woodleigh FMJ, the Hornady DGS and DGX. For some reason, you are interpreting my statements as saying these three bullet types are unsafe in doubles. BUT I DIDN'T SAY THAT. To the contrary, I said "they are probably all safe"! Read that again. It's key to my position here. My position being that if the Woodleigh FMJ, Hornady DGS and DGX, with which many of the current double rifle manufacturers are regulating their rifles today, are considered "safe" in vintage doubles, and the empirical data generated by Michael and Sam's research shows the current mono's to produce LESS barrel strain than those bullets, the direct correlation is that the mono's must also be safe!

Now, in response to Rusty asking if I have additional empirical evidence showing this, I asked if anyone has empirical evidence to the contrary; evidence that would support the old wives tale of mono's being unsafe in doubles; evidence showing that the mono's develop MORE barrel strain than the traditionals. If so, I'd really like to see it. That's not a smart ass statement. It's sincere as I try to form my opinions based on evidence instead of other opinions, to the extent that can be done.

The reason I inquire as to where you stand at the moment is that I can't figure out if you are sticking with your statement to Lee where you stated "Incorrect" and went on to support the hydro bullets (monos), or if you are just taking a stance against Michael's data because the Woodleigh FMJ consistently produced the highest strains. Point of fact, in support of your rebuttal to Lee, Michael's data supports your position 100%. So do you agree with the data or not as it relates to the comment of "stick to the traditional bullets with vintage rifles"?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

BTW, I'm thinking of coming through Houston toward the end of next week. Are you planning to be around then and can you make a trip to the range? If so, I'll bring the 500 and 9.3.

That sounds perfect. I will make sure I have some ammo loaded for the Holland, Lang and the Manton so you can play with them.

I've got a box or more of 577NE as well that I haven't shot and since I no longer own a 577NE, maybe you could bring that Searcy out also?

Sure . . . you can shoot it and I will watch.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Sure . . . you can shoot it and I will watch.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Sure . . . you can shoot it and I will watch.

Better be careful, you may fall in love with those looooong barrels!

Todd, thank you for your answer. As I understand it the test data is from Michael458 and Sam Rose.

Mike,

I should be around at the end of the week.

Let me know Mike, Todd.

Regards,

Rusty

Would be great to see you Rusty. I need to talk to you about how to get some television coverage for an SCI event in November at the Star of Hope.

My intent was to get the OP to look into the pro's/cons of the various bullets out there and their effects on vintage guns. I saw that it was a 3-1/4 version which got my attention regarding age. There ARE mono-metal bullets out there that can be detrimental to old, soft steel vintage rifles and I was hoping that the OP would do more investigation before possibly making a mistake. I really should have explained it more thoroughly... my bad. I am aware that some of the new bore rider bullets are supposed to be free of this issue. It would be nice if someone like Sherman Bell would do an article on it in Double Gun Journal that would be seen as unbiased and would help educate the fraternity, as not everyone with an interest in double rifles is on AR.
I have but one double rifle, a Rodda 400 3", and cannot afford to damage the barrels to the tune of 7-10K for a set of replacements!
I know Woodleigh sure used to make .411 solids as I have several boxes, but I wonder, given their relative jacket thickness, if a .410 would relieve any appreciable amount of strain on old barrels? That might make for an interesting test, not just from a strain standpoint, but from a wear and tear on old bores point.
Something else that would be great would be a condensed version of Mike and Sams tests here, minus the peanut gallery comments that frequently add nothing. Sure would make getting to the facts a lot easier! Lee.

One thing to remember about the "traditional" bullets and their relation to barrel strains. If we are talking "traditional" as in Kynoch, as Jines points out with 100+ years of use, that's one thing. But when discussing Woodleigh and Hornady, the only thing "traditional" about those bullets is the shape, not the composition.

The original Kynochs did not have steel inserts! The Woodleighs and Hornadys do! Nothing "traditional" about that!! Those steel inserts are very likely the reason for the much higher barrel strains.

Todd

What do you mean by "steel inserts" ?