I asked this question about a year ago and got a number of opinions and responses including 1 from Butch Searcy which said his guns can use them and issued a repair if damaged guarantee on the Forum.
i have just recieved an E-Mail from Peter Hambrusch I have both a 500NE Hambrusch and a 470 Searcy.
Question to Peter was will Barnes Banded Solids and TSX bullets, or any other monolithic bullet for that matter, cause damage to the barrels of my Hambrusch double rifle,
Quote from Peter
"no problems at all with these bullets.
Barrel is rifled to CIP measurements and can take all kinds of bullets
Also the barrel-steel is from highest class
Tensile Strength: 1000 N/mm2"
Thought some of you might like to know Peter's opinion on this subject.

Thanks for this post.

This should be the same with any of the new modern built guns to include Merkel, Heym, Blaser, and Kreighoff. I'm shooting Trophy Bonded Bear Claws through my Merkel .375, and I am confident this gun will hold up with no problems.

This goes against accepted beliefs for double rifles. I do believe that these bullet types should be avoided in older guns where the steel and manufacturing may not have been as sound as in our modern guns.

Thanks for sharing your info. Mike

quote:

Originally posted by mdstewart:
I do believe that these bullet types should be avoided in older guns

Agree.

quote:

Originally posted by mdstewart:
I do believe that these bullet types should be avoided in older guns where the steel and manufacturing may not have been as sound as in our modern guns.

They were and are sound - after all, and mostly still are, the guns passed proof.

It's just that bullet technology has moved on ad is not always backward compatible ?



Is a car built in the 50's, nice and solid as they were then not sound because it can't use unleaded petrol ???? Same principle.

quote:

Originally posted by 500N:

quote:

Originally posted by mdstewart:
I do believe that these bullet types should be avoided in older guns

Agree.

quote:

Originally posted by mdstewart:
I do believe that these bullet types should be avoided in older guns where the steel and manufacturing may not have been as sound as in our modern guns.

They were and are sound - after all, and mostly still are, the guns passed proof.

It's just that bullet technology has moved on ad is not always backward compatible ?



Is a car built in the 50's, nice and solid as they were then not sound because it can't use unleaded petrol ???? Same principle.

Agree, and stated much better than in my ramblings. Thanks, Mike

I can't think that either Barnes bullet would be more punishing on the barrel - in terms of hardness or pressure than would be the Woodleigh solids - would they?

Might be worth looking at some of the results on the Terminal Bullet Performance thread over in Big Bores. Michael and Sam documented some interesting results regarding Woodleigh soft vs. solids and Barnes Banded Solids.

quote:

Originally posted by mvambrose:
I asked this question about a year ago and got a number of opinions and responses including 1 from Butch Searcy which said his guns can use them and issued a repair if damaged guarantee on the Forum.
i have just recieved an E-Mail from Peter Hambrusch I have both a 500NE Hambrusch and a 470 Searcy.
Question to Peter was will Barnes Banded Solids and TSX bullets, or any other monolithic bullet for that matter, cause damage to the barrels of my Hambrusch double rifle,
Quote from Peter
"no problems at all with these bullets.
Barrel is rifled to CIP measurements and can take all kinds of bullets
Also the barrel-steel is from highest class
Tensile Strength: 1000 N/mm2"
Thought some of you might like to know Peter's opinion on this subject.

I have double rifles from the last decade of the 1800s, to some in the first half of the 1900s and some made in 2000 and even later!

I will use regular jacketed soft point bullets like the copper clad Hornady 300 gr soft point .375 in the ones from the 1800s as long as they’re not to thick skinned. User all jacketed soft and solids in the ones from the first half of the 1900s. The ones from last half of the 1900 and the first ten yrs of the 2000s I use even tough steel jacketed ones and the NF or GS Customs, or the new one that one of the guys on AR he developed. All made from copper, with the pressure rings properly cut as a bore rider should be, VERY THIN with a place between the rings for the displaced copper engraved by the rifleing.

However I will not use, nor recommend the use of a solid Bronze bullet that is not, IMO, cut properly for use in a double rifle. Butch Searcy’s doubles are made to shoot these very hard bullets, and he recommends them without reserve, as he should for his own product. I’m in no way saying I know more than Butch Searcy about any double rifle, and especially on his own product. I will say though if I owned a dozen Searcy double rifles not one of them would ever feel the pressure in their bores from one of those bronze bullets with the wide rings. I assure you I would trust Butch far before I would Barnes,where double rifle are cconcerned, and come far closer to using them on his say, and I still will not, even in his rifles.

This is simply a matter of choice for the owner of a double rifle! What I can't get through my thick scull is, Why take the chance when better designs are about! This is not meant to enflame anyone, just one man's opinion, and you know what they say about opinions and certain orfaces of the body! This one is no different but is somthing to think about!

............................Now I'll go back to little cabin in the deep woods!

The main problem with doubles is not weather the barrels can take the hard bullets but can the soldering withstand the repeated barrel expansions as the bullets go through.

Norma constructed equipment to accurately measure barrel expansion at both the breach and muzzel. Barnes Banded Solids gave the same amount of barrel expansion as Woodleigh Steel jacketed solids.

There are plenty of other designs out there that give double that ammount of barrel expansion - Swift A frame for example and several other brands of brass mono's....

quote:

Originally posted by Don Heath:
The main problem with doubles is not weather the barrels can take the hard bullets but can the soldering withstand the repeated barrel expansions as the bullets go through.

Norma constructed equipment to accurately measure barrel expansion at both the breach and muzzel. Barnes Banded Solids gave the same amount of barrel expansion as Woodleigh Steel jacketed solids.

There are plenty of other designs out there that give double that ammount of barrel expansion - Swift A frame for example and several other brands of brass mono's....

+1

JD

quote:

Originally posted by Don Heath:
The main problem with doubles is not weather the barrels can take the hard bullets but can the soldering withstand the repeated barrel expansions as the bullets go through.

Norma constructed equipment to accurately measure barrel expansion at both the breach and muzzel. Barnes Banded Solids gave the same amount of barrel expansion as Woodleigh Steel jacketed solids.

There are plenty of other designs out there that give double that ammount of barrel expansion - Swift A frame for example and several other brands of brass mono's....

Don I agree with every thing you posted. Especially the part about the, solder becoming tired over time, from vary hard bullets!

Non-ferrous metal cannot stand expanding, and contracting in such sudden fashion and over time will become crystallized and separate the surfaces it holds together. Like you my opinion is, this is far more common than the OSR of the barrel steel.

Contrary to popular belief OSR is real, and again IMO, is caused by bullets that are too hard in combination with barrel steel that doesn’t have enough elasticity, becoming so over long periods of time, to recover the sudden stretch as the very hard bullet passes through the bore. Examples of OSR that I have seen are most times in the last 10 inches of the barrels near the muzzle where the steel is thinnest, and on older double rifle or combination guns.

The OSR in the steel could have the same crystallizing effect as the solder, but over very long periods of time.

IMO, it is not the hardness of the bullet material alone that causes solder separation, or OSR, but how MUCH of this hard metal the barrel is forced compress with no place for displaced hard metal to go. This is bullet design, not choice of material!

Bullets like the North Fork, and GS Custom and some others now available are not only made of softer material (copper) but are made so that the pressure rings are very thin, and the grooves cut between the are deeper than diameter in barrel’s bore. This allows the material displaced by the rifling a place to go. These type BORE-RIDER bullets cause less barrel expansion than the common lead core copper clad bullets that have been used quite successfully for over 150 years.

Though many of the mono-metal bronze bullet makers have attempted to recover from the bad press associated with their solids in double rifles, IMO the design is camouflage more than improvement. The bands are still too wide!

The new banded brass bullets are not the same as the old solid brass bullets put out by Barnes, withe the little ridge around the middle.

They by definition are worse than the banded solids. There is no place for the brass pushed out by the rifling than to bulge the barrel. You can't put a 10 pound bullet through a nine pound hole without something giving way.

Yeah, I used the old solids and never busted a DR barrel but others that used them did.

Letting the brass or copper have somewhere to go is the real benefit of the banded solids, regardless of what the marketing guys say.

Gents:
For the record, I've shot 100 rounds of Barnes banded solids through my .600 Wilkes with no sign of pressure or OSR. I worked up to the regulated velocity of 1900 fps in my 26" barrels. Accuracy was the same as with lead or Woodleigh or the traditional older Barnes soft nose. The only problem is the non-traditional look and, being a bit longer, take up precious powder space when using IMR 4831. There is a two page write-up in my .600 book and that has been reproduced on my website.
Cheers all,
Cal

Thanks Cal for that post.

I have intentionally chosen the "new" Trophy Bonded Bear Claws as my #1 bullet choice in my new Merkel .375 H&H because I believe it to be a superior bullet after its latest redesign and because I like the properties of its expansion and consistency.

As most of you know, the "new" Trophy Bonded Bear Claw is now coated with a nickel plating and has also been changed with a series of grooves to allow for shavings to collect.

The sizing of the grooves is highly debatable, and I am not aware of any scientific study to determine the best shape for grooves on a bullet to be used in double rifles. There are way more folks on this site that have much more experience with bullets and DR's than me, and I believe them to be competent and cautious, for good reason.

However, no single manufacturer of modern double rifles (to my knowledge) has a warning box or dis-claimer to prevent the use on mono bullets in their double rifles.

I have asked for an opinion from Germany regarding the use of mono's in Merkels, and the responses have been less than definitive. The statement was that Merkel ceases using Federal ammo to regulate due to excessive barrel fowling, not due to a perceived potential damage to the soldering of the barrel ribs. (I don't know what that means, but I do know my gun shoots great with the Trophy Bonded Bear Claws, out to 150 yards). I have it scoped for longer work.


The truth of the matter is that until someone or some company comes up with an in-depth study to scientifically evaluate the use of mono's in modern double rifles, we will not have a definitive answer. I am taking on a layman's experiment and will post with further info regarding the use of the Trophy Bear Claws in my .375. But for now, I love them. And I shoot alot.

I am not restricting myself just to these bullets in my rifle, as most handloads will be much more financially feasible. However, for the average person wanting to shoot a double rifle, factory loads must be considered and reported upon.

75%, I expect, of the folks to whom I sell DR's do not hand-load, and want to know about how factory loads shoots in their potential purchase. That's why we shoot all our DR offerings with factory Hornady loads before a sell. At least the customer knows if the ejectors work properly, ensures that the gun doesn't double, and gets a close idea as to the regulation.

I greatly respect the advice and knowledge of MacD37 and so many others on this site, and want to encourage all to add to this discussion with their insites and experience.

Thanks, Miie

It's your rifle and you ought to be able to shoot whatever you was to run down the barrel.
As for me. . .
There will be no monolithic bullet down the barrels of my vintage 450/400 3 inch.

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
It's your rifle and you ought to be able to shoot whatever you was to run down the barrel.
As for me. . .
There will be no monolithic bullet down the barrels of my vintage 450/400 3 inch.

100% agree Rusty!

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
It's your rifle and you ought to be able to shoot whatever you was to run down the barrel.
As for me. . .
There will be no monolithic bullet down the barrels of my vintage 450/400 3 inch.

I was in agreement until I had to test / get recoveries of some of the Woodleigh Hydro's.

And what did it teach me - make sure you know what the EXACT Size of your bore because if it is undersize like my 465, your bore will engrave the shank.

Mine did slightly and that was my fault, ot Woodleigh's as they were spot o for .465 bore.

So I would use them but be cautious.

.