The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Double Rifles Woodleigh Bullets and Double RiflesGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Woodleigh Bullets and Double Rifles | Login/Join |
One of Us |
Gerard, It looks like there was no mix up after all. You were commenting on engraving pressure and I was commenting on barrel strain. As both you and I stated in our posts, 2 different issues.  Shoots, With the bands, you have less area in contact with the lands. The grooves between the bands give the excess material a place to go instead of increasing strain presssure. With a traditional bullet, there is no place for the excess material to go, so if you have a hard bullet like the Woodleigh FMJ, Hornady DGS or DGX, the stress is transferred to the barrel when the bullet cannot compress. Yes, the Brass may be harder, but it has less contact surface area and extra space to relieve excess material. You can't simply compare hardness of the material alone in considering how safe a bullet is. You have to take into account the design as well. Similar to the argument that you can't say a 300gr 375 at 2500fps will shoot flatter than a 400gr 416 at 2400fps. It may be so, but often with bullets of the same design from the same manufacturer, the 416 bullet will have a higher BC in which case the flatness of trajectory between the two calibers will be very similar. The bottom line here Shoots is that in the past, we all had to rely on "Someone told me XYZ bullet is too hard or not safe so use this one instead". These comments were based on subjective opinion. With Michael and Sam's work, we have repeatable, verifiable, OBJECTIVE, and MEASURABLE data that can be used to compare the actual stress that is being imparted to your barrel. With just a little objective study of the different designs, it should be clear how these Bore Rider design's work to reduce barrel strain. | |||
|
| one of us |
Todd,barrel stress can mean nothing.Any bullet going down the barrel will cause the barrel to swell-at least from what I heard.Isn`t something very hard scraping along the rfling in any quantity more harmfull to the bore than a thin copper jacket pushing against the walls.Think of it as a sharp knife lightly pressed against the skin vs a dull one pressed a little harder.The sharp knife will cut. | |||
|
| one of us |
A master of the mixed metamorphosis. | |||
|
One of Us |
Ok I'll throw my thoughts into this...which I as well can't prove. Thin copper jacket being less harmful - not always. Case in point is that both the Woodleigh FMJ and the Hornady DGS/DGX have thin copper jackets - however the underlying jacket material does not deform or engrave so these three bullets do cause higher stress to the barrel as the bullet moves through the barrel. However the Woodleigh RN softpoint has a similar thin copper jacket with a very soft lead core that easily deforms (hence the need to keep velocities down else the bullet becomes a pancake upon impact) which results in lower barrel stress as the bullet moves through the barrel. And all three of these bullets have a bearing surface of at least .700" in length for say .416 caliber 400gr bullets. And note...in Michael's barrel strain testing the Woodleigh RN softpoint is the "barrel strain bullet standard" against which all other bullets are compared. Now let's move to the CEB BBW#13 FN Solid. a driving band solid bullet of brass construction; i.e., a much harder material than the thin copper jacket of the Woodleigh RN SP bullet. In the same 400gr .416 caliber the BBW#13 bullet will indicate a barrel strain that is within the standard diaviation stress readings of the Woodleigh RN SP bullet. However the BBW#13 FN Solid is designed to outperform other solid bullets in DG and will not pancake regardless of the density/hardness of the material it is shot into/onto. So how does it do this...very simple, the shank never contacts the barrel so the barrel stress is limited to the total bearing surface of the driving bands which for the BBW#13s four sriving bands is <.200" bearing surface...and once the bands are deformed to closely fit the barrel grooves no additional deformation takes place unless the bullet encounters a high point within the barrel...but even in their squished maximum the bullet bearing surface that actually engages the barrel is <.250" in total. Now brass used is a much harder material than a thin copper jacket but the brass bullet does not scrape barrel material off of the barrel as it passes through the barrel as you suggest with yor knife anology. Jim  "Life's hard; it's harder if you're stupid" John Wayne | |||
|
| One of Us |
Perhaps someone in the know can answer the question, "Why was the Woodleigh soft point selected as the standard?" Whether intended or not, selecting a standard gives the impression that anything with barrel strains over that level is too much and anything less is safer. Kynoch uses the Woodleigh FMJ in its factory ammo, Hornady uses its DGS solid in its factory ammo and both have shown higher strain levels than the WSP. Would they be using unsafe bullets in their loads or ones that would cause barrel damage, considering the liabilitiy issues that they constantly worry about? Barrel strain levels maybe higher with these bullets but what basis do we have to say that thet are unsafe or will cause barrel damage? Perhaps barrel strain data is not an issue. Don't jump on me, just asking questions. Also does anyone have barrel strain limts such as SAMMI? 465H&H | |||
|
| one of us |
What`s that? | |||
|
| One of Us |
465 H&H, Well first off Woodleigh was one of if not the first to make bullets for the Nitro express cartridges after Kynoch stopped making ammo. Woodleigh was designed to be similar in shape so as to regulate in doubles. Most modern bullets at the time were wrong weights and shapes. As we all know bullet shape can effect regulation. Now are the Woodleigh solids safe? Well lots have been shot with no problems and more will be I'm sure. Why were they made with thick steel jackets? Because most cup and core jacketed solids failed often do to bending and riveting. Rigby made a thick nosed steel solid that worked well unless it tumbled and then the thin walls collasped. Early mono metal bullets had long bearing surfaces and were shown to be bad for doubles. Many writers talked about HARD bullets damaging double barrels, this included Woodleigh steel jacketed bullets. Now you want to know the reason the BBW#13 got started? Myself being a double rifle shooter and having many period guns did not want to shoot any solids in them that I felt might harm them. When I shot solids I took old Kynoch ammo pre Woodleigh and pulled the solids to load with modern ammo. Then I met Michael458 and he got me started playing with new bullet designs. All the time I've had the 2 band solid bullet in my mind as the bullet to shoot in a double. Remember you were the second person to shoot an elephant with the proto type 2 band bullets! Well with the pressure trace system that Michael458 has I saw we could test these bullets and compare the forces against the barrels. AH HA we have I think proved that the safest bullet to shoot is a period Kynoch thin walled steel jacketed bullet and the next in line is the current CEB BBW#13. So are other bullets safe well maybe but why take a chance? Sorry I'm going to edit, 465H&H I misread your post and just saw you asked why the Wooleigh soft was used as the standard. Michael and I in our tests used the Wooleigh soft as our benchmark bullet because everyone assumes it is safe to shoot in any double. I have never heard any bad comments about the Weldcore soft points! I hope this is what you were asking. Sam | |||
|
| One of Us |
Sam- See above my comments on the 350gr Woodleigh RN from my BPE load development. I ditched them due to little more than a bad feeling and my results from having sectioned one and the comparison against a sectioned Hornady. I wonder how they'd compare in a pressure/strain test against the hornady. Cheers Tinker _________________________________ Self appointed Colonel, DRSS | |||
|
| One of Us |
Shoots, I'm not sure you are grasping the concept here. Personally, I think all the bullets on the market are probably safe for shooting in doubles of modern design. Maybe not for vintage guns with soft steel barrels. I never bought the idea of OSR caused by TSX bullets. Maybe the old X but not the TSX. And the data shows the TSX to be just above the Woodleigh Soft (benchmark) but well below the Hornady offerings. What's funny to me is all the talk previously about the TSX damaging barrels and it turns out to create LESS barrel strain than the bullets used by the manufacturers to regulate their rifles with at the factory. So, I think they are all probably safe for the most part. But, when I have objective data to compare the bullets, as long as terminal performance is equal or better, I'm going to select the bullet that puts the least amount of strain on the rifle barrels. It just so happens however, that in addition to the lower strain numbers, the design on the CEB and North Fork bullets seem to show better straight line penetration in both game and test media. Two major pro's in my opinion. Woodleigh FJM with the round nose arguably doesn't perform as well as the FN with the 78% meplat. Some argue this point and it is indeed more subjective depending on the test media. I'm sold however. The Hornady DGX has some history of less than optimum performance from time to time in addition to the high barrel strain. Two strikes against these two bullets IMO. Why choose a bullet that "might" come apart on a tough, "on the point of the shoulder" shot and also, "DOES" produce higher stress within the barrel. I just don't see the reason to choose the DGX or WL FMJ unless you don't reload and shoot factory fodder only. But then again, that is one of the many reasons why we reload. Among other things such as costs and matching the components to your specific rifle, you also often have a larger selection of premium bullets. Isn't it great to have these new bullets to debate! | |||
|
| One of Us |
Probably better answered by Sam or Michael than me but to my understanding, no one is claiming that any of the bullets are unsafe from a barrel strain angle. Their barrel strain data simply provides a means of objectively comparing the stress produced by the different bullet types. The selection of the WL Soft as the benchmark provided a starting point for comparison as many considered the design and construction of that bullet to be close to the old Kynoch in addition to matching the Kynoch shape. Point being, even if the WL FMJ with its "highest barrel strain" number is safe, why not choose a bullet that is measurably easier on your guns' barrels? Especially if the terminal performance of the lower strain bullet is equal to or better than the bullet with the higher strain. I know you don't necessarily agree with the better performance angle, but the test data does seem to point in that direction more often than not as well. The CEB and North Fork just seem to have the edge in performance and strain over the conventional RN Non-Borerider designs. Why use the bullets with 2 strikes against them? | |||
|
One of Us |
I have always been afraid to shoot a steady stream of copper clad steel bullets through any of my guns. In my doubles, I shoot Woodleigh softs or, if they are available, plain old Hornady Interlocks at the range. In the past, I would shoot only enough Woodleigh copper clad steel solids to work up a load and put them aside. However, I agree with Todd, I would not be afraid to shoot the North Fork and CEB solids on a regular basis. I don't think they produce very much wear and tear on your barrel and I think Michael has shown that they perform better in the field. Dave DRSS Chapuis 9.3X74 Chapuis "Jungle" .375 FL Krieghoff 500/.416 NE Krieghoff 500 NE "Git as close as y can laddie an then git ten yards closer" "If the biggest, baddest animals on the planet are on the menu, and you'd rather pay a taxidermist than a mortician, consider the 500 NE as the last word in life insurance." Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading (8th Edition). | |||
|
One of Us |
I suppose the first question I would ask concerning the statement above is, Show me Kynoch and Hornady Data showing whatever determination that they have come up with to say one way or the other? What tests have either done showing anything at all? I dare say I have seen no such data, or test work, it may exist, but seems to me if it did it would be for all to see, there would be no reason to keep it secret or not publish the facts at all, and in fact if there is something to show otherwise it would be wise to show the data to support the fact. Sell more bullets that way you see. I assume that most of you know the name JD Jones. JD is a friend of mine, and more than that, SSK Industries, JD Jones, builds all the B&M rifles and has from the beginning. JD has family in this area not so far, and on occasion gets down this way. When he does he makes a day to come visit with me and we have a grand time talking and shooting. JD was here this week and we had a great visit. JD has been in the industry forever, knows everyone in the industry, knows all the secrets and all the inside info on nearly anything related. He knows some of these major manufacturers very well. He continues to tell me that not even the major manufacturers has the data we have right here on all the work we do. They don't have the terminal information and data, they don't have anything near the studies we have. He tells me that much of the bullet industry is not driven by performance, but by limitations in design of the machinery that makes the bullets, and the huge expenses to make changes. Especially cup/core type bullets, not CNC. He tells me that actual performance is second place to many other factors, one of the big ones being ease and expense of manufacture. JD has been instrumental in helping out with many bullet designs, and in fact the BBW#13 is an off shoot of one of JDs designs from many years ago in some of his specialized handgun bullets. He likes the BBW#13 a lot, and of course we know that JD works close with Lehigh bullets, David Fricke. They do a lot of work with Sub-Sonic brass designs and work to get blade shear at very very low impact velocity. Which they have succeeded. We had chats for several hours concerning bullets. He tells me point blank that we have more info and data here than any major manufacturer has on terminal performance, and is amazed at the depths we have gone to on other projects like the barrel strain work. So I don't know myself, I know just the projects that Sam and I work on, some of my own projects, and I think we are WAY ahead of the curve on most all of it to be honest with you. And, with someone as privy to the industry as JD Jones saying as much, I tend to believe it. 465HH Sam and I chose the Woodleigh Soft as the "BenchMark Bullet" as I understand most all double rifle shooters would consider it a standard and safe in any double rifle. There has been many concerns over "Steel Inserts" protecting soft lead inside a copper jacket, speculation, that sort of thing. Same as the old style Barnes RN Mono's with no bands and full length bearing surface. When things are questioned such as both of these type bullets, you would not choose those as your "BenchMark Bullet" then would you? The very fact there are concerns and questions would nix that immediately. You would also NOT choose a more modern bullet like the North Fork or GSC that claims to be safe, yet still a mono, this has to be proven. You for sure would not choose the BBW#13 as a "BenchMark Bullet" as it is new and unknown, or was. So you choose something considered safe by shooters---SHOOTERS and Owners of Double Rifles--For sure Not Manufacturers of Bullets as do you really trust that judgement alone--they are not exactly what I would call objective you see. From my understanding, Double Rifle Owners and Shooters consider the Woodleigh Soft a safe bullet in double rifles, this is why it was chosen. And to be honest, I still support that decision, and it looks like a good decision was made on that point. You see, I just don't swallow the CRAP that any manufacturer or snake oil salesman has to say, regardless if it is our current bullet manufacturers or some other product. You gotta show me or in the case of bullet tech, I will find out myself. Just because "THEY" say so, don't make it so. Now, I get no moneys from North Fork, CEB, nor GSC, which all of these consistently came under the Woodleigh Soft in barrel strains. Barrel strains are simple, that strain gage measures how much that barrel expands at the moment that bullet passes that point. Not rocket science and very logical. The more that barrel expands at that point, the, more stress it puts on the "GLUE" holding the other barrel next to it. Now I know shit about double rifles, but that is pretty simple to understand, if one does not understand that, then you don't need to be here to begin with. Now that bullet is not only expanding that barrel at that single point at where the strain gage is, it's expanding that barrel all the way down the bore. Now, shoot that left barrel and it is expanding all the way down the bore on that side. Sooner or later, the one with the most expansion of the barrel is going to start to loosen things up. In fact, I don't see how every single bullet made won't do the same thing at some point, all of them. But for example let's assume the barrel strain data is true and correct---Go to each point on the scale--Highest Barrel Strain to Lowest Barrel Strain. Bullet A has consistently the highest barrel strains from every test, regardless of caliber or barrel. For example lets say that a Chap shoots 500 each of bullet A in each barrel before the "Glue" comes undone. 1000 Rounds total. Now, Bullet B has the lowest barrel strain in each test conducted, regardless of caliber, regardless of barrel--One shoots 1500 Bullets down each barrel before they start to come "UNGlued" and separate. Bullet C is the Benchmark bullet, most of the time, right in the middle of it all, you are able to shoot a 1000 bullets down each barrel before they come unglued. Now I am just picking numbers out of the air for examples of demonstration, nothing more than that, I have NO EARTHLY idea of how many of each bullet might be shot down barrels before coming unglued, this could vary from rifle to rifle as well, and how good the craftsmanship is on each individual rifle and dare say it would not even be close from one rifle to the next, just an example of the way I see how this works with these things. I believe that you can shoot enough of any of them to eventually cause them to come apart, just the ones with the lower barrel strains will for sure get more rounds down the bore before doing so, and with many of them, if the rifle is glued together proper, then you will most likely never in your life shoot enough to cause them to come unglued, that should be rather simple to understand. I am sure that Kynoch and Hornady, or any other major manufacturer understands that most owners of double rifles are not going to shoot more than a couple of hundred rounds through them in a lifetime. Especially if one does not handload, and purchases factory ammo at current costs. And, liability of such things decreases considerably if you handload! I dare say that if you went to a major manufacturer and told them your barrels have split because of their bullets, the first question they ask "Do You Handload?" and if you do, what do you think their response is going to be? I forget the exact cost of the 5 rounds of Kynoch that Sam bought for the 500 Nitro test, but I think it was incredible--I doubt very seriously that anyone is going to shoot enough factory Kynoch rounds to split a barrel, unless of course they spend as much on ammo as they did their rifle. Liability is minimum for these sort of things from a business point of view. There is always going to be liability with anything and everything, too many attorneys looking for work, but when hand loading is eliminated as mentioned above, and the expense of factory ammo what it is, liability becomes limited at that point. I deal with this in my own business weekly, and on occasion have an issue, but not enough of an issue to stop what I do. We carry on, as does the bullet manufacturers! Whew, sorry, I do get long winded! Michael http://www.b-mriflesandcartridges.com/default.html The New Word is "Non-Conventional", add "Conventional" to the Endangered Species List! Live Outside The Box of "Conventional Wisdom" I do Not Own Any Part of Any Bullet Company, I am not in the Employ Of Any Bullet Company. I do not represent, own stock, nor do I receive any proceeds, or monies from ANY BULLET COMPANY. I am not in the bullet business, and have no Bullets to sell to you, nor anyone else. | |||
|
One of Us |
The logic and specific, valid measurable data produced my Michael in his body of work is as clear as 2+2=4. I have no doubt in my mind these bullets are much easier on rifles than just about any other bullet out there. If your rifle regulates with them, you'd be downright silly not to use them. USN (ret) DRSS Verney-Carron 450NE Cogswell & Harrison 375 Fl NE Sabatti Big Five 375 FL Magnum NE DSC Life Member NRA Life Member | |||
|
One of Us |
I knew there was a reason I liked those CEB #13s!!! The SSK .429 320 was my favorite when I was solely a handgun hunter in the early 80s. The mould threw 313 grain bullets from the straight Linotype I used and were incredible penetrators from my 629 and RSR. I am not at all surprised by the results of your "Terminals" based on my experience with that shape out of a handgun.  And Michael - Yes you are - but we like you anyway!  NRA Lifer; DSC Lifer; SCI member; DRSS; AR member since November 9 2003 Don't Save the best for last, the smile for later or the "Thanks" for tomorow | |||
|
| one of us |
Barrel strain might be a good thing.If you shoot many bullets that do cause strain there will still be enough engraving on them to shoot accurately when the bore starts to erode.If you start off with no strain how are these hard brass bullets going to stablize, shoot accurately and penetrate deep when the there is no strain left to engrave them? They will shoot like shot from a shotgun.IMO,you will never be able to shoot 500rds of brass monometals from any barrel and still have any accuracy even at 50yds. | |||
|
| One of Us |
 Shootaway, Whenver I need to lighten my day I read one of your posts. Thanks for the chuckle!  NRA Lifer; DSC Lifer; SCI member; DRSS; AR member since November 9 2003 Don't Save the best for last, the smile for later or the "Thanks" for tomorow | |||
|
| one of us |
CCMDoc,here is another one for you.The short barrel, flat monometal or pistol-handgun way of hunting is not the proven way of hunting. If it was people would have been hunting this way during the time when alot of smart people where hunting. | |||
|
| One of Us |
 | |||
|
| One of Us |
Yet another reason to shoot a Blaser S2.... No "glue".  Dave DRSS Chapuis 9.3X74 Chapuis "Jungle" .375 FL Krieghoff 500/.416 NE Krieghoff 500 NE "Git as close as y can laddie an then git ten yards closer" "If the biggest, baddest animals on the planet are on the menu, and you'd rather pay a taxidermist than a mortician, consider the 500 NE as the last word in life insurance." Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading (8th Edition). | |||
|
| One of Us |
Having an S2 is like sex with fat chicks or riding a Vespa. Lots of fun to ride em'....until your friends see you with one.... USN (ret) DRSS Verney-Carron 450NE Cogswell & Harrison 375 Fl NE Sabatti Big Five 375 FL Magnum NE DSC Life Member NRA Life Member | |||
|
| One of Us |
 Dave DRSS Chapuis 9.3X74 Chapuis "Jungle" .375 FL Krieghoff 500/.416 NE Krieghoff 500 NE "Git as close as y can laddie an then git ten yards closer" "If the biggest, baddest animals on the planet are on the menu, and you'd rather pay a taxidermist than a mortician, consider the 500 NE as the last word in life insurance." Hornady Handbook of Cartridge Reloading (8th Edition). | |||
|
| One of Us |
Shootoverthereawayfromme, I tried to respond to you with logical discussion and you go back to speaking gibberish! Never fight with an idiot. You'll both get stupid but the idiot will enjoy it! Where is LionHunter. I think Shoots needs another Bitchslap! | |||
|
| one of us |
Shootaway<
A metaphor is a figure of speech that is used to paint one concept with the attributes normally associated with another. Example: "He has the wild stag's foot." This phrase suggests grace and speed as well as daring. A mixed metaphor is one that leaps, in the course of a figure, to a second identification inconsistent with the first one. Example: "Now we can just kiss that program right down the drain", (said by a civil servant whose department's budget was slashed). Metamorphosis - a complete change of form, structure, or substance, as transformation by magic or witchcraft. | |||
|
| One of Us |
That is way beyond my ability to understand. You have to keep your jokes simple for folk like me ... NRA Lifer; DSC Lifer; SCI member; DRSS; AR member since November 9 2003 Don't Save the best for last, the smile for later or the "Thanks" for tomorow | |||
|
| One of Us |
From Confiucious:  USN (ret) DRSS Verney-Carron 450NE Cogswell & Harrison 375 Fl NE Sabatti Big Five 375 FL Magnum NE DSC Life Member NRA Life Member | |||
|
| One of Us |
As I stated in my earlier reply, I have had two rifles have their right barrels go out of regulation. I suspect but can't prove that it was due to using Woodleigh solids. I am trying to find out if SAAMI has specifications for barrel strain similar to the ones they have for chamber pressure, bullet diameters and case dimensions. The reason I wonder if my problems are due to using one bullet make and type is that I have used other bullet makes and types in these same guns and it may be one of those is at fault. Or it may be a problem with how the barrels were jointed in the first place. The fact that many others have used the Woodleigh solid without any problems just confuses the situation in my mind. Just looking for answers. Michael, As to your comments, I have little or any disagreement. The only bullet company that I have seen claim less barrel strain with their bullet in their advertising is Woodleigh for their Hydro design. What data they used to make this claim is not given. I have only heard of one other poster that had a similar trouble with his double and that was 500 grains. I believe it was his 500 Searcy that had the right barrel go out of regulation. If any one else has had such a problem please post. 465H&H | |||
|
One of Us |
Does this guy just like to fuck with us? Mac | |||
|
| one of us |
Solids are very hard on the bore.IMO,they should be avoided entirely during practice.IMO,if one continues to shoot them they will cause changes in the bore and POI will change especially at distances from 50 yds and up.I don`t think there will be much change at 25yds.I think that it might be impossible for any heavy double rifle to shoot solids to same POI from both barrels at 50 yds and keep it up for many rds. | |||
|
| One of Us |
McKay, In a word - yes! A quick perusal of George's posts in the Big Bore forum - particularly those regarding barrel cleaning or any of the heated exchanges between Shootaway and Jeffeosso or Robgunbuilder - will have you reaching for your favorite adult beverage. NRA Lifer; DSC Lifer; SCI member; DRSS; AR member since November 9 2003 Don't Save the best for last, the smile for later or the "Thanks" for tomorow | |||
|
One of Us |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition” ― Rudyard Kipling | |||
|
| one of us |
Shootaway, If two bullets are identically constructed but one has an exposed lead nose and one is a solid, how can the solid be harder on the bore? Same speed, same weight, same dimensions, same material, same type of metal in contact with the barrel and so on. | |||
|
| one of us |
I say this becuase when I shoot solids it is almost impossible to clean the copper out of the bore wheraeas if I shoot copper jacketed lead core softs especially the really soft ones like the Remington 405grs which explode on impact,the copper cleans out as if it were nothing.Barrel life and therefore accuracy lasts along time if I shoot the jacketed softs especially the 405`s.Whenever I shoot solids I see the overall accuracy of the bore deteriorate and POI change at an alarming rate.I can tell what type of bullet I shot just by cleaning the bore.I use JB on a patch around a copper brush and clean until I see the muzzle end of the bore completely free of copper.This can take one cylce of cleaning when shooting Rem 405`s or two days and nummerous cycles when shooting solids.I would have to say they ar harder on the bore because they do not give and apply too much engraving pressure on the walls.With monometals ,especially brass solids,you will be pushing a material that is extremely hard against the bore . | |||
|
| one of us |
Shootaway, You made a statement:
I asked a question:
You answered an imaginary question, not the one I asked. You are talking about bullet construction, not bullet type. If you shoot expanding bullets, that are constructed in the shaft area like the brass solids you described above, and solids that are constructed like the lead core bullets you described above, the situation with copper deposit would be reversed. So it is not the fact that the bullet is a solid or a soft, but the construction of the bullet that determines whether you have a copper fouling problem or not. Forget about the fact that it is impossible for a brass bullet to cause copper fouling, that is another issue. | |||
|
| one of us |
How can two bullets be identically constructed when one is not a solid and the other is? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Well the Hornady DGS and DGX have the same jacket and one faces forward and the other backwards thus you have a solid and a soft constructed the same way I think. Also the DGX is harder than the DGS because the base of the DGX can,t compress like the DGS. the DGS has an open back end. | |||
|
| one of us |
Define 'solid bullet'. | |||
|
| One of Us |
As tempting as it is, you guys are arguing with the idiot. Watch out. Your IQ is going to temporarily drop below 3 digits. Don't believe me, just watch as your responses become more and more frustrated. A bit like your responses to a child who asked you "Why" for the 200th straight question. You are being sucked in to Shootanywhichwayyoucan's tractor beam of stupidity! Logic has nothing to do with it.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
I haven't put anywhere close to as many rounds through my Merkel 470 as some guys here but given that it's a modenrn gun I felt fine shooting both Weldcores and Woodleigh FMJs. Were I to acquire a fine vintage gun I would probably do more research before deciding which way to go. I don't make near enough money to wreck a gun of any sort, let alone a vintage double! SCI Life Member DRSS "In those savage countries success frequently depends upon one particular moment; you may lose or win according to your action at that critical instant." Sir Samuel Baker | |||
|
One of Us |
Gerard, if one bullet has an exposed lead nose and one is a solid then the two bullets CANNOT POSSIBLY BE identically constructed. It doesn't take rocket science to understand that a bullet homogeneously composed of some hard metal will resist deformation by rifling more than a bullet made of a softer metal, even if the softer bullet is jacketed with the harder material. Bite an aluminum bar and it hurts your teeth. To bite it hard enough to leave teeth marks would break your teeth. Next, bite your finger wrapped in aluminum foil. It hurts your finger and teeth marks are created without damaging your teeth. It doesn't matter that it is aluminum that you are biting into both times. The softer material (your finger), even when jacketed with aluminum, deforms more readily than solid aluminum. The same goes for lead (soft material) jacketed with some bronze alloy or steel (harder materials). . | |||
|
| one of us |
Very good point.What good is a $20000+ rifle if it can`t shoot? A rifle's bore and it's accuracy is very fragile.If a rifle can't group accurately out to a hundred yards it is not always reliable.IMO,a heavy rifle will keep it's accuracy to that distance for at least 500rds if one shoots soft jacketed bullets alone.How long will it keep this kind of accuracy if one shoots brass or copper monometal solids? Not for long,IMO. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Double Rifles Woodleigh Bullets and Double Rifles
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
