Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am curious, since I wish to buy a double rifle in 450/400 in the future.

Has anyone ever had pressure problems, barrel damage and/or barrel separation while using Woodleigh soft points or FMJ bullets in their double rifle?

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Chris, that are several threads on this topic. Short answer is "Do you intend buying a modern built gun, or an older gun eg. early 20th century? If an older gun, then some would recommend steering clear of the FMJ's. If a new gun then I would not worry. My doubles are newer and I have had had none of the issues described above.
Peter.

Chris - I own a Searcy Classic in 450/400 and shoot 400 gr Woodleigh softs (.411) and solids (.410). Both are superbly accuarate (group inside 2" at 100 yds)and none have ever caused any problems.
Mangwana

Vintage rifles are very nice but a new double can take a lot more shooting in my opinion.

Mike

No problem shooting Woodleighs (both flavors) in my 470 Searcy.

No problem in my .600 Wilkes with Woodleigh softs, solids, or Barnes solids. I just keep velocity at the original proofed level.
Cheers,
Cal

I use Woodleigh softs and solids in my 470 K gun without issues.

Check out Michael458's threads on the "Double Rifle Bullet of the Future". He uses the Woodleigh Soft as the benchmark bullet when testing for barrel strain. However, the Woodleigh FMJ consistently produces the absolute highest barrel strain, across every caliber tested. Is it safe in your gun? Only you can make that decision. I don't shoot them or Hornady's in mine.

Engraving pressure or shot start pressure, whatever you want to call it, is a factor in the stress placed on the construction of a rifle. It is the pressure required to move the bullet from the case to fully engraved.

The engraving pressure of a typical lead core bullet, Woodleigh included, is around 3600psi. The engraving pressure of monometal bullets (softs and solids) and solid shank softs, vary from 750psi to 9000psi, depending on how the bullet is constructed and who the manufacturer is. Obviously, lower engraving pressure is easier on the rifle and the bore.

An easy test to do is to load same weight bullets with identical powder charges. Seat the various bullets in such a way that the case volume that remains after seating is similar. Shoot them over a chrono. The bullet that goes the fastest also generates the highest pressure.

Gerard,

We are talking 2 different things here. Pressure is one while barrel strain is quite another. Reading the data form Michael's tests, one can see that peak pressure can be relatively constant among different loads and bullets while the barrel strain vary wildly with the different bullets. Barrel strain is independent of pressure of the load.

Michael can explain it much better than I, but he and Sam learned that to get the true barrel strain created by the bullet, they had to back the load way down so that the actual passage of the bullet was being measured instead of the pressure generated from the load.

By the way, if I remember correctly, your bullets performed very well on the barrel strain tests.

Thank you for all your responses.

Sincerely,

Chris Bemis

Woodleigh bullets are designed to replace the old Kynoch bullets. I own a vintage English 450/400 3 inch. I have been shooting Woodleigh Weldcore bullets for over 17 years! I have no problems!

Woodleigh replace Kynoch in shape only. The original bullets have very thin walls and give the lowest strain on barrel of anything we tested. The Woodleigh gave the highest. These bullets are thick steel jacketed and I personally don't care to shoot them in my older guns. I'm sure all bullets can be considered safe but why take a chance.

Sam

My Woodleigh Weldcore bullets are not steel jacketed. At least they are not attracted to a magnet. I know Hornady DGX, and DGS are steel jacketed.

Your solids should be steel. If not then maybe they have changed them. News to me.

Yes, you are correct. Solids are steel jacketed. Weldcores soft points are not steel!
Did y'all test the Weldcores?

The weldcore was our bench mark bullet believed to been perfectly safe in all doubles. All strains were compared to this bullet.

I have no personal knowledge of a double rifle being damaged by shooting a Woodleigh Weldcore copper jacketed bullet. Would you check your Weldcores to see if they are steel jacketed?

I checked Woodleigh's site and it seems the Weldcores are just lead /copper bullets?

Thanks for your information.

Yale, you only asked about Woodleighs so that was my answer. However, the GS Custom banded solids are the standard by which I measure all other bullets in terms of accuracy. I have a 500/416 double as well as a 416 Rigby. The GS Custom 380 grain solids are superbly accurate in both. There are several threads on banded solids.
Peter.

Rusty,

Sorry for the confusion. Weldcore soft point bullets are not steel jacketed and is a bullet that should be perfectly safe in any double. The Woodleigh solid is what I was saying is steel jacketed and gave some of the highest barrel strains in our tests. The wledcore soft is what we use as a bench mark comparison bullet.

As most of you know, I have been a strong supporter of the use of Woodleigh RN steel jacketed solids for African dangerous game. They work extremely well in that context as far as deep straight line penetration in my experience. Saying that, I must now say that I am no longer using them in my double rifles. After using lot of them in my German made 465 H&H the right barrel went out of regulation with the right barrel. The left remained on target. I had to send it to J.J. at Champlins for re regulation. The exact same thing occurred on two occasions with my Searcy Deluxe Grade 470. Butch got it back twice for re regulation. Again, only the right barrel went out of regulation. I know others have used a lot of them without a problem. I haven't been as lucky. I am now using either North Fork or CEB #13s in these rifles. I can't say for sure that the Woodleighs caused the problems. But I am no longer taking any chances. I would still use them in bolt rifles with complete confidence.

465H&H

In my vintage English guns I use Woodleigh Weldcore Softs with great success. If I need to use their solids I only check a few for regulation and then only use them when actually hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by 470Evans:
In my vintage English guns I use Woodleigh Weldcore Softs with great success. If I need to use their solids I only check a few for regulation and then only use them when actually hunting.

Why take the chance of damaging your rifle with the FMJ's by just checking regulation and using them as little as needed when there are other bullets on the market now that arguably perform better, and provably produce less barrel strain? Especially in light of the fact that the Woodleigh FMJ has consistently produced one of, if not THE HIGHEST barrel strain in every caliber tested.

Again, in a bolt action rifle, no problem. But in a double, especially a vintage rifle? As Sam stated, the Woodleigh only duplicated the SHAPE of the Kynoch. The Kynoch's produced some of the LOWEST barrel strains.

My point is that until Michael and Sam set out on this research project, we all had opinions of what bullets were safe or not, but did anyone really know? Who knows how these opinions were formed? Remember all the objections to shooting the TSX in doubles. As it turns out, the TSX produces less barrel strain than the Hornady DGS and DGX which are the very bullets most new manufacturers use to regulate the rifles at the factory. Bottom line is that we now have some very good OBJECTIVE data to use for comparison concerning what bullets are safe in your double rifle without having to rely on the very SUBJECTIVE "Someone told me xyz bullet is OK" when if fact it may very well not be!

I can't disagree with anything that has been said except to ask;
How many rounds of steel jacketed ammo do you guys expect to shoot out of your double?
Peter

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
I can't disagree with anything that has been said except to ask;
How many rounds of steel jacketed ammo do you guys expect to shoot out of your double?
Peter

I don't expect to shoot any! I've done some ele hunting and am booked to do at least 2 more in the near future, so I do shoot quite a few solids. I used the Barnes Banded in the past but am now using the CEB BBW#13's.

Is anyone able to tell me which alloy is being used in the Woodleigh or Hornady bullets? Soft or Encapsulated?
I have been shooting swagged bullets with both dead soft and alloy (about like #2) in several different doubles and I know they have been successfully used for the past 30 years in a variety of double calibers without fail. I am wondering if it is the hardness of the alloy which does not flex and causes problems in vintage doubles. We have been using brass for the bonded alloy solids rather than steel because it is easier to get and is much easier to work with. We are also using copper up to .065 thickness with success.
Perhaps it is only the steel jacket causing the problem but I wonder if anyone has more information about that.
Frank

Gentlemen I’m going to stay out of this one! I’ve been called everything but a saint for my opinions on the heavy steel jackets, and bronze solids without pressure rings (bore riders) , in vintage doubles and in fact, even many modern doubles!

All I will say is, it is your rifle and you are willing to take the chance go for it! Many have used what I consider to be bad bullets in doubles without problem till the problems occur, then it is to late!
...............................................................................

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Martinez:
Is anyone able to tell me which alloy is being used in the Woodleigh or Hornady bullets? Soft or Encapsulated?

Frank I can't find a copy of Hornady's original comments from the introduction of their DGS/DGX bullets. I seem to recollect that it was a copper bonded steel that they were using and the copper layer was somewhere around 12-14 thousands thick on the formed cup; they didn't note the thicknes of the steel jacket. Hope this helps.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Gerard,

We are talking 2 different things here. Pressure is one while barrel strain is quite another. Reading the data form Michael's tests, one can see that peak pressure can be relatively constant among different loads and bullets while the barrel strain vary wildly with the different bullets. Barrel strain is independent of pressure of the load.

.....

By the way, if I remember correctly, your bullets performed very well on the barrel strain tests.

Todd,

From having followed Michael's and Sams work very closely, I believe you have misunderstood Gerard's comments.

Barrel strain is directly related to the amount of bullet bearing surface (amount of engraved bullet material) and the toughness of the material being engraved.

An example is the difference in initial barrel strain pressure between identical CEB BBW#13 banded bullet - one constructed of brass and one constructed of copper. The brass bullet will show a slightly higher initial strain pressure reading because the metal is harder to engrave but both bullets will show virtually identical barrel strain readings at the muzzle because once the bands ae engraved both bullets have sealed the barrel and give very little pressure riding down the barrel with only the four bands in contact with the barrel.

GSC bullets do give very good readings as they as well are bore riding banded bullets.

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Gerard,

We are talking 2 different things here. Pressure is one while barrel strain is quite another. Reading the data form Michael's tests, one can see that peak pressure can be relatively constant among different loads and bullets while the barrel strain vary wildly with the different bullets. Barrel strain is independent of pressure of the load.

.....

By the way, if I remember correctly, your bullets performed very well on the barrel strain tests.

Todd,

From having followed Michael's and Sams work very closely, I believe you have misunderstood Gerard's comments.

Barrel strain is directly related to the amount of bullet bearing surface (amount of engraved bullet material) and the toughness of the material being engraved.

An example is the difference in initial barrel strain pressure between identical CEB BBW#13 banded bullet - one constructed of brass and one constructed of copper. The brass bullet will show a slightly higher initial strain pressure reading because the metal is harder to engrave but both bullets will show virtually identical barrel strain readings at the muzzle because once the bands ae engraved both bullets have sealed the barrel and give very little pressure riding down the barrel with only the four bands in contact with the barrel.

GSC bullets do give very good readings as they as well are bore riding banded bullets.

I too have followed Michael and Sam's work closely. I can't see anything in your post that I disagree with nor anything I have posted in the past concerning this issue that is in conflict with what you say.

The part of Gerard's post that lead me to believe he was getting pressure and barrel strain mixed up was the last paragraph where he said "An easy test to do is to load same weight bullets with identical powder charges. Seat the various bullets in such a way that the case volume that remains after seating is similar. Shoot them over a chrono. The bullet that goes the fastest also generates the highest pressure."

If there is a connection here to barrel strain or the amount of pressure required to initially engrave the bullet, I don't see it. But I welcome the opportunity to be educated.

Todd you're correct...definately two issues. That'll teach me to shoot my mouth off with only one cup of coffee under the belt!

Ask yourselves if brass or copper monometals where safe then why do the manufacturers need to undersize them and leave two or three bands to ride the bore?

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
Ask yourselves if brass or copper monometals where safe then why do the manufacturers need to undersize them and leave two or three bands to ride the bore?

Simple answer is that not all manufacturers design there monometals bullets as bore riding bullets so not all monometals bullets are designed with a shank diameter smaller than the barrel bore diameter with driving bands that are groove diameter. Nosler and Hornady come to mind...and only some of Barnes TSX or BND SLD bullets can be properly termed as bore riders.

So why make bore riders? Very simple as one gets reduced barrel strain pressure and generally higher velocity than a traditional C&C or bonded bullet...as well as greater within mass terminal performance. Plus the design can be copied by lead molded bullets but not by traditional C&C or bonded core bullet manufacturing methods. So what's not to like.

If you look at the wide base bands on most mono bullets you will see it is very wide. This is part of the reason they need to be undersize. Also I'm sure they are scared of them being shot in vintage guns with varying groove diameters. Narrow that base band up and you have a bullet that puts less stress on a barrel than most cup and core bullets.

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Martinez:
Is anyone able to tell me which alloy is being used in the Woodleigh or Hornady bullets? Soft or Encapsulated?

Frank I can't find a copy of Hornady's original comments from the introduction of their DGS/DGX bullets. I seem to recollect that it was a copper bonded steel that they were using and the copper layer was somewhere around 12-14 thousands thick on the formed cup; they didn't note the thicknes of the steel jacket. Hope this helps.

Thank you for the info. I had read about the jackets but there is no info on the actual alloy (lead) core.
I do not like steel jackets of any sort and have talked to several hunters from the old days that had similar problems using the old Cupro-nickle jackets which Elmer Keith wrote about often.
Here is a photo of a .470 steel bullet with bore ridge from about 25 years ago. Originally from "Bell".

No worries Cappy. We all miss the intent of a post every once in awhile!

Shoots, from a logic standpoint, I don't think your question is valid. It's a bit like the question, which came first, the chicken or the egg. The bands reduce the surface area which in return creates less barrel strain. Having the bands requires the bullet to be undersized a bit or else there can be no bands. Without the bands, and just a full sized bullet completely engaging the rifling, it would create higher strain. But because the bands are there, it produces lower strain. A bit of a circular argument.

Realize this however, almost all of the non-bore-rider bullets tested produced higher barrel strain. So therefore, since they don't have the bands, and are not undersized, but produce higher barrel strains, are they really safe? I would say that for me, in my guns, and especially if I had a vintage double, the answer would be that the Hornady DGS and DGX, as well as the Woodleigh FMJ are not safe. But that is my personal opinion concerning what I am or am not willing to shoot in my guns. The DGX also has a bit of a performance problem IMO but that is another topic.

Another point never brought up is this: While Woodleigh Weldcores were the benchmark bullet and are considered safe...the CEB's produced LESS barrel strain than the Woodleigh softs...the benchmark bullet. So if one considers Woodleigh Weldcore Softs safe...they must consider the CEB BBW #13's safe too.

For whatever it's worth here, a few years ago while developing loads for a 500-450 BPE rifle I tried woodleigh 350gr softs.
Somehow that bullet just didn't feel right at the first shot.
This prompted me to section one and also a hornady 350gr soft of similar shape. While I was at it I also tested the lead hardness with a (saeco I think) lead hardness tester.
The hornady used copper for jacket, which was thinner than the woodleigh jacket which was made of a harder guilding metal, and the hornady lead was softer than the woodleigh.

I run the hornady bullets in that rifle, which are known to perform well even at higher velocities that I run them.

Since then I've tried the woodleigh in a bolt rifle, and there too they just didn't feel right.
Of a box of fifty bullets purchased six or so years ago, I still have more than 45 of them.
The hornady works great, it's softer, and it's much more affordable than the woodleigh.

BTW, I've used woodleighs in 6.5mm, 303, and 8mm rifles with good success.

Todd,

quote:

The part of Gerard's post that lead me to believe he was getting pressure and barrel strain mixed up was the last paragraph where he said "An easy test to do is to load same weight bullets with identical powder charges. Seat the various bullets in such a way that the case volume that remains after seating is similar. Shoot them over a chrono. The bullet that goes the fastest also generates the highest pressure."

There is no mixup, my post was about shot start pressure and nothing else. Barrel strain is a separate issue and muzzle velocity of similar weight bullets is largely determined by shot start pressure. The drag that results from the friction between bullet and barrel wall plays a much smaller role.

Therefore, the difference in chronograph readings will largely be indicative of shot start pressure. Engraving pressure is what causes doubles to delaminate if pressure (P/max) is always kept to reasonable levels.

Shootaway,

quote:

Ask yourselves if brass or copper monometals where safe then why do the manufacturers need to undersize them and leave two or three bands to ride the bore?

The obvious answer is to make them safe. However, copper is less of a problem than brass and under size is one way to go. Some manufacturers do not go under size and still produce monos that are softer on the barrel than any lead core bullet. Do not confuse grooves with drive bands. All monos are not created equal.

quote:

Originally posted by Gerard:
Todd,

quote:

The part of Gerard's post that lead me to believe he was getting pressure and barrel strain mixed up was the last paragraph where he said "An easy test to do is to load same weight bullets with identical powder charges. Seat the various bullets in such a way that the case volume that remains after seating is similar. Shoot them over a chrono. The bullet that goes the fastest also generates the highest pressure."

There is no mixup, my post was about shot start pressure and nothing else. Barrel strain is a separate issue and muzzle velocity of similar weight bullets is largely determined by shot start pressure. The drag that results from the friction between bullet and barrel wall plays a much smaller role.

Therefore, the difference in chronograph readings will largely be indicative of shot start pressure. Engraving pressure is what causes doubles to delaminate if pressure (P/max) is always kept to reasonable levels.

Shootaway,

quote:

Ask yourselves if brass or copper monometals where safe then why do the manufacturers need to undersize them and leave two or three bands to ride the bore?

The obvious answer is to make them safe. However, copper is less of a problem than brass and under size is one way to go. Some manufacturers do not go under size and still produce monos that are softer on the barrel than any lead core bullet. Do not confuse grooves with drive bands. All monos are not created equal.

How can it be softer on the barrel when copper and brass monometals don`t give like lead core bullets.?