Hornady DGX .458 480gr.

26 February 2009, 07:07

Here is a pic of the new DGX I am wondering if the outer wall is to thin for a double rifle bringing the steel capsule in contact with the rifling...
Those nicks I made into the lead center core...

Mike

26 February 2009, 07:15

JPK

In a recent thread, I think the one on mono metals for doubles, 400 Ntro Express said that he worked with Hornaday to ensure that the copper was thick enough to take the land engraving and never expose the steel.

Here is what 400 Nitro Express said:

"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."

It doesn't specifically adress .458" bullets. But you gotta think they covered that base as well.

JPK

05 March 2009, 14:16

Will

quote:
Originally posted by JPK:
In a recent thread, I think the one on mono metals for doubles, 400 Ntro Express said that he worked with Hornaday to ensure that the copper was thick enough to take the land engraving and never expose the steel.

Here is what 400 Nitro Express said:

"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."

It doesn't specifically adress .458" bullets. But you gotta think they covered that base as well.

JPK

I suspect this is better explained that the copper thickness is great enough that when the bullet is engraved that the engraved area yields before the grooves push through the copper.

From what I have seen of sectioned bullets, the Hornady steel jacket thickness is less than the Woodleigh's and hence the question would be "are Hornady's too thin?" !!

-------------------------------
Will / Once you've been amongst them, there is no such thing as too much gun.
---------------------------------------
and, God Bless John Wayne. NRA Benefactor, GOA, NAGR
_________________________

"Elephant and Elephant Guns" $99 shipped.
“Hunting Africa's Dangerous Game" $20 shipped.

red.dirt.elephant@gmail.com
_________________________

If anything be of note, let it be he was once an elephant hunter, hoping to wind up where elephant hunters go.

05 March 2009, 16:32

JohnDL

I find it interesting that the steel jacket thickness tapers in front.

One wonders if they designed the front to expand a bit, sort of like the NF cup points.

05 March 2009, 16:44

JohnDL

My bad! I thought this was a solid and on closer inspection it's their soft point.

06 March 2009, 04:07

retreever

I call this Hornady bullet an expanding solid.. It is not a soft point by any means...

Tomorrow I am going to cut one crosswise...

Mike

06 March 2009, 14:14

JohnDL

The cross-section is reminicent of A-square dead toughs. My gut feeling is that it will work pretty well.

06 March 2009, 17:37

JPK

quote:
Originally posted by retreever:
I call this Hornady bullet an expanding solid.. It is not a soft point by any means...

Tomorrow I am going to cut one crosswise...

Mike

Hornaday's photos show performance similar to the North Fork cup points. Somewhere between a "soft" and a "solid". Seems like a good route to me, but I wonder if it still leaves a requirement for a true, greater expanding soft for those who use their doubles - or any rifle - for more than buff or eland.

JPK