Double rifle gents,

_________________________

Please see post below...updated questions...
_________________________

Just thought I'd check in on you fellas and see if there is any interest amongst your ranks for a 475 to 500 grain, .475 cal, FN banded solid. The bullet will be turned from bronze and should be highly suitable for use in double rifles (driving band design).

We have a thread going on the Big Bore Forum about it at the moment. See here.

The design will be complete very shortly. We have enough interest so far to get a minimum first run going (500 bullets). The cost of the bullets will be $275/100pcs, including delivery anywhere in the lower 48.

If you are interested in getting in on this initial "group buy", please post here, on the other thread on Big Bores, or PM to me.

Cheers
Canuck

ps: Here are some of Macifej's other efforts, just FYI

A 558gr, .505 FN solid, grooved design...



A 310gr, .395 grooved/banded HP BT.

Yep, banded for double rifles as well as bolt action trash.

We await the design to see the bands and see the weight which will be somewhere in the 475 to 500-grain range.

Would any weight less than 500-grains be acceptable in a double rifle?

I have 2 boltactions and one DR, and am certainly game to try an S&H-truncated-cone-banded-brass-FN bullet to see if a Merkel will shoot them parallel to infinity and to the sights, at proper velocity.

Is this a tall order?

UPDATE: through various iterations of the design, its looking like it will end up in the vicinity of 500grains anyway.


Cheers,
Canuck

Canuck!

A little over 1.4" and 475 Grains.

How you guys coming on the last few slots?

Prof sent a prelim message from the field that he is shooting a .75" group at 100 with his first try at a field load with the .395" Sharkee. Sounds like there will be some dead Elk in that area soon. The guys who are using the .505 are doing about the same in the accuracy dept.

Macifej,
I think maybe the double rifle guys would be interested only in a 500-grain true-drive-band-TC-FN design similar to what has been made first by GSC and subsequently by North Fork.

You got the true-drive-band-TC-FN part right, I think, in your latest variation of the theme.
475-grain would be great in a boltaction 470 Capstick or 470 Mbogo. It will probably do 2800 fps in my 470 Mbogo, and 2500 fps in my 470 Capstick, and be a wonder of death and destruction on both muzzle and butt sides of the rifle. Loaded to lower pressures and slightly less velocity, the same would apply in death and destruction on the muzzle end of the rifle.

475-grain instead of 500-grain might repel the double rifle guys.

It will be crossed and low to standard regulation and sights, due to either increased velocity or lesser recoil with the lighter bullet.

It might be slowed down and shoot parallel to infinity on either side of POA, but where is the fun of that?

You will have to make it a 500-grainer to get any DR interest, IMHO.

What RIP said.

A 500 grainer would be necessary to allow the same POI with both softs and solids and to keep things consistent with the regulation load. Or I suppose you could drop down to 375 grains, consistent with the 75% rule, which should get you the same POI.

If the bullets are true driving band construction, they will sell. If they are banded solids (like the Barnes), few people will risk possible barrel damage.

I know this is probably a dumb question, but that has never stopped me in the past - why don't people use tungsten to increase the bullet weight and keep the bullet length down? I understand that tungsten is more dense than lead, even more dense than most double shooters.

Tungsten has significantly higher density and hardness than lead. It has a lot of other interesting properties as well. Tunsten is used in the manufacture of various types of projectiles. Unfortunately, most hunters aren't going to pay the $10.00 per bullet it would cost in smaller quantities to properly manufacture a tungsten composite projectile. Of course, if you have the $$$$ I can make them for you.

quote:

Originally posted by Canuck:
Double rifle gents,

Just thought I'd check in on you fellas and see if there is any interest amongst your ranks for a 475 to 500 grain, .475 cal, FN banded solid. The bullet will be turned from bronze and should be highly suitable for use in double rifles (driving band design).

ps: Here are some of Macifej's other efforts, just FYI

A 558gr, .505 FN solid, grooved design...

The bullet shown here will not sell well with Double rifle guys! The reason is the long un-banded shank! Bronze is too hard; when there is no place for the displaced material to go when the rifling engraves the bullet. With the bands a little narrower, and going all the way to the base of the bullet it will sell.

Many misunderstand the reason the mono-metal bullets damage some double rifle. Everyone says "Well bronze is softer than the barrel steel, so........ The fact is all barrels expand, as the bullet goes down the bore, and returns to it's memory shape when the bullet passes. The problem is when the bullet is as hard as bronze, and the shank, or bearing surface is as long as they need to be with mono-metal, that is lighter than lead, and to get the same weight, something needs to relieve the amount of pressure on the walls of the barrels, when a double rifle is used with these bullets.
This is best done with easily engraved pressure bands the full length of the bearing surface of the bullet, to give the displaced metal a place to go. The most damage done by improperly made mono-metal bullets in double rifles is to the solder that holds the ribs, and barrel wedges together. The barrel steel can recover, but the solder cant stretch that fast, and is not elastic enough to avoid breaking the solder joint! Cut the bands all the way to the base, and make the bands narrower, and you've got a very good double rifle solid! In it's present form, I would not shoot them in any of my double rifles, nor would I recommend them to anyone else for that purpose! In a single barrel they are fine the way they are, and I'd use them in my bolt rifles, or single shots! That's my two cents; spend it the way it will do you the most good!

quote:

The bullet shown here will not sell well with Double rifle guys! The reason is the long un-banded shank! Bronze is too hard; when there is no place for the displaced material to go when the rifling engraves the bullet. With the bands a little narrower, and going all the way to the base of the bullet it will sell.

Many misunderstand the reason the mono-metal bullets damage some double rifle. Everyone says "Well bronze is softer than the barrel steel, so........ The fact is all barrels expand, as the bullet goes down the bore, and returns to it's memory shape when the bullet passes. The problem is when the bullet is as hard as bronze, and the shank, or bearing surface is as long as they need to be with mono-metal, that is lighter than lead, and to get the same weight, something needs to relieve the amount of pressure on the walls of the barrels, when a double rifle is used with these bullets.
This is best done with easily engraved pressure bands the full length of the bearing surface of the bullet, to give the displaced metal a place to go. The most damage done by improperly made mono-metal bullets in double rifles is to the solder that holds the ribs, and barrel wedges together. The barrel steel can recover, but the solder cant stretch that fast, and is not elastic enough to avoid breaking the solder joint! Cut the bands all the way to the base, and make the bands narrower, and you've got a very good double rifle solid! In it's present form, I would not shoot them in any of my double rifles, nor would I recommend them to anyone else for that purpose! In a single barrel they are fine the way they are, and I'd use them in my bolt rifles, or single shots! That's my two cents; spend it the way it will do you the most good!

MAC!!!

That is exactly why I hesitated to post a picture of Macifej's other bullets....I knew there would potentially be misunderstandings but hoped people would actually read all of the words in my post and figure it out.

Please take the time to read my post.

As it says in my post, and in the part you quoted, the bullet shown is a "grooved" bullet. It is NOT intended for use in double rifles. I only showed his two grooved bullet offerings to give a comfort level around the quality of the product. Macifej does not currently make a "banded" bullet.

What I was asking about was whether anyone here would be interested in Macifej designing a "banded" bullet, EXACTLY as you are describing!!

In fact, the design on a 475 gr .475 BANDED bullet is complete. I will post a picture of the design here. We landed on 475grain based on feedback on the big bore forum (some individuals - who probably won't buy a bullet anyway! - felt that 500+grain solids would be too long - turned out to be a cool design anyway though, and should be pretty darn effective).

Anyway, Macifej says that doing a 500gr bullet of the same design is quite simple...if there is enough interest, it will get done.

So, if anyone is interested in having another option to choose from, in a bullet that will be very suitable for use in a double rifle, by all means speak up here.

In case anyone is wondering, I have no vested interest in this whatsoever...I am just polling for interest, as I am interested in having lots of options for us .470 users (bolt trash and double rifle shooters) to choose from, and it looks like Macifej is putting together a really good product. We only need a handful of guys that are willing to pay $275 for 100pcs (including delivery within the lower 48) for this to happen.

Cheers
Canuck

Double rifle gents,

By the resounding silence, I can only assume that there is no interest in what is proposed above. I do, however, find that kind of hard to believe (gun nuts not interested in a new bullet! ).

Anyway, I am looking for feedback here. So I am hoping some of you can let me know why? Is it as simple as me being put on "ignore" by most of you? I hope not. But seriously, I am curious if the lack of interest is due to:
1. The bullet weight?
2. The bullet design (banded solid)?
3. The material (bronze)?
4. The price?
5. Its an unproven commodity at this point?
6. All of the above?
7. Other?

Any and all feedback is welcome. I can't vouch for Macifej, but I know you won't hurt my feelings.

The intent of my query here is just to see what could be changed, if anything, to generate additional interest in the bullet. I am personally quite open to any number of options (I originally and still favor a heavier option), and while this bullet has not been made it is still open to design changes.

Hope to hear from a few of you at least (I know there are a bunch of 470s out there now that Big5Jack has you announcing it in your signatures! ).

Cheers,
Canuck

OK, why .475" ?


Are you looking at it for the 470 NE
or one of the AR Wild Cats ?

I thought 470 NE was .474 and I know
it is a bloody small difference but
why change the bullet diameter ?

Or is it because it uses Driving bands
that you think it doesn't make a difference ?

FWIW, I don't think a small deviation in weight leads to regulation issues.

As an example, I can, and have, developed loads that shoot to regulation in my 458wm DR using 350gr (Woodleigh), 450gr (North Fork), 480gr (Woodleigh) and 500gr bullets (Woodleigh.)

The rifle was undoubtably regulated with 500gr bullets. 350gr bullets meet the 75% rule. The others meet no rule but pose no problem.

I also know that 450 NE No. 2 has developed loads in his No 2 that shoot to regulation with all of the same bullet weights and the same bullets, except in lieu of the 350 Woodleighs he uses 350 Hornadays. (To which I will switch when I run out of my current stock of 350's for some cost savings.)

The No 2 was undoubtably regulated with 480gr bullets.

I think to generate interest you'd need to post photos of the driving band bullet. I was as confused as you think Mac was by your photos and your post.

JPK

North Fork & G S Custom have a big jump on this idea!

Jack,

True statement in the sense that they have been making driving band bullets for a while with great success. This bullet is not a NF or GSC design nor do I use soft copper alloy. Additionally, I will make short runs of custom bullets to a customers specification - design to delivery in one week at a competitive price. I/we are not looking to replace other manufacturers in this market just supplement what they are already doing.

Macifej

for doubles, there can be NOT flat shank, as I discussed before.

the depth/width volume of the grooves must be so great as to NOT allow there to be a continuous "filling" ... and the inner/minor diameter should be -.001 of the bore diameter.

ALL modern .475s are .475, there is no .474 button

Must be something in the water in Texas!

Jeffeosso!

No one is talking about making a full, partial, or "flat" shank for doubles. You and MACD37 aren't reading Canuck's thread. What these guys want is not what I made in .505".

But since we're on the subject - .475 - .001 = a minor diameter of .474". Why bother making bands, grooves, or steamed greens? That set-up will create significantly more radial load on the bore of a thin walled barrel than something with wide deep grooves and narrow bands.

The soft alloy is a MUST for use in double rifles. NF has a proper design and the soft alloy for double guns use. GS has a proper design, but I heard that they do not use soft alloy.

Rather than hearsay maybe one of you guys who owns a double (I don't) and understands material science can offer up a material specification. If enough guys come to an agreement then I don't care if they're made from Play-Doh!

I am new to doubles, don't be upset by this question? What will your bullet do for me that a Norfork flat nose solid won't (at less than half of your price of your bullet)?

JD

The GSC copper and North Fork copper are the same.

Mike Brady of North Fork tried making his banded solids to .474" max diameter and had to change it to =/+.475" due to poor accuracy in many rifles of all sorts, DR and BA, resulting in large groups and some keyholers.

I do not think material hardness is an issue with the banded design, and a .475" brass/bronze banded design would be fine. Brass is very soft compared to modern barrel steel.

The Trophy Bonded Sledge Hammers that Merkel regulated with had some full diameter solid brass/bronze bearing above the lead filled shank, but Jack Carter used a .474" diameter with his full bearing lead-cored brass solid, and had no accuracy problems due to the greater bearing surface.

A true-banded brass/bronze .475" design would be easier on the DR's than that. Surely.
My Merkel has .475" grooves and handles all bullets well enough, except the .474" banded NF did suffer in accuracy, though no keyholing. Just doubled the group size.
Going to .475" bands tightened it to the usual excellence.

It might be tough to find the North Forks between his big runs after they are sold out.
GSC seems to be hit or miss with prompt delivery too.

A brass/bronze true-drive-band-TCFN design is different and supplied by nobody else right now.

BTW the Barnes brass/bronze "sparsely grooved/multi-cannelured" Ogive-FN solids are undersized routinely, that is their design.

I am working with Barnes to do a 475 cal. flat nose TS that will be designed for the DR, BA, LA guns and will be in the 375gr and out to about 450 grain ranges. I will also be having them make a banded FN in the 400-475 grain range also. Not to run you off of the bronze bullets that you are trying to get together with. The nose that you have will not work in the LA guns with out extra work. It is very much like the North Fork bullet theat Mike made for me in a 450gr.

quote:

Originally posted by Doug Turnbull:
I am working with Barnes to do a 475 cal. flat nose TS that will be designed for the DR, BA, LA guns and will be in the 375gr and out to about 450 grain ranges. I will also be having them make a banded FN in the 400-475 grain range also. Not to run you off of the bronze bullets that you are trying to get together with. The nose that you have will not work in the LA guns with out extra work. It is very much like the North Fork bullet theat Mike made for me in a 450gr.

I would not expect many uses for any .475 bullet that weighs less than 500 grains. I could be wrong but my guess is that most of the demand for .475 will be for Double rifles and any thing less than 500 grains may be diffcult to regulate.

Roscoe,
i can't imagine why.... bearing surface and dwelltime are going to change regulation

if the barnes as the same LENGTH as a conventional bullet, and shot at the same speed, it will be very darn close to regulation.

425-450 is about right

jeffe

Jeffe,
I agree with all you have said here about the .475 caliber rifles. Some of the antiques may be .474" grooved or who knows what unless you slug them to find out.

A lighter weight bullet may regulate at similar or slower velocities than the conventional 500-grain bullets for the 470 NE, but where is the fun in getting a lower powered load for the 470 NE? That is not a DG option.

375 grains is exactly 75% of 500 grains, and a regulating load for that in DR's might be found as per Tony's "75% Rule." But it would be a plinking load or a deer and varmint load, most likely. It should be a hollowpoint-expanding bullet in that weight for such use in a DR.

The .475/375-grain CUP Point or FN solid would not be a DG bullet, even if useful in a leveraction. The true DG lever-action bullet ought to strive to reach 435 grains by the "BS-SD Rule." A 435-grain .475 bullet, soft, solid, or CUP Point) could be useful in any 470 or .475: .275 SD monometal does the job.

We really need to change the name of that rule to the "S&B Rule."

smith berrry density??
sbd?

sdbs?
S&B Density Rule?

jeffe

I do not claim to be an expert on the subject however in my experience, doubles tend to be selective in what they will shoot well. I am not sure many would want to spend the time trying to get an underweight X-bullet to regulate. Maybe I am wrong...but I would not find them useful in my 470 double.

If you could get extra velocity out of them then maybe they would have a use for smaller game...but there again would it regulate properly to shoot at extended range?

IMO the beauty of the 470 is that it hits animals hard with a heavy bullet, at modest velocity. Take away the weight and it becomes a 45-70....and we all know how useless those are!

Roscoe,
I hear yah... however, there's lots more to this than preferences

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
FWIW, I don't think a small deviation in weight leads to regulation issues.

As an example, I can, and have, developed loads that shoot to regulation in my 458wm DR using 350gr (Woodleigh), 450gr (North Fork), 480gr (Woodleigh) and 500gr bullets (Woodleigh.)

The rifle was undoubtably regulated with 500gr bullets. 350gr bullets meet the 75% rule. The others meet no rule but pose no problem.

I also know that 450 NE No. 2 has developed loads in his No 2 that shoot to regulation with all of the same bullet weights and the same bullets, except in lieu of the 350 Woodleighs he uses 350 Hornadays. (To which I will switch when I run out of my current stock of 350's for some cost savings.)

The No 2 was undoubtably regulated with 480gr bullets.

I think to generate interest you'd need to post photos of the driving band bullet. I was as confused as you think Mac was by your photos and your post.

JPK

I'll say it again.

JPK

JPK,

I'll post photos in a few days when we get them done. Unfortunately there won't be extras if you decide you want to try them out after the run is complete. I am only going to make enough to fill the immediate requests.

Thanks for your input anyway.

Hey, I'mm sure your bullet will do just fine. What I was trying to get across, aside from the need for a banded design where there is room for material displacement and no solid shank, is that weight ain't that critical, even for a double rifle, despite the old wives' tales.

JPK

The .475 looks nothing like the .505. As far as performance - the .505 has been tested by three members here. The results so far look like this:

Penetration - 37" wet sand and three sheets of plywood. (more potential here)

Accuracy - .25" group by one shooter, .75" group by another shooter.

Different makers of rifles, different powders, loads etc.

None of the loads was full power and of course no signs of pressure.

Seems many of us have become spoiled with the banded, grooved, or whatever type of bullet. I seem to remember shooting THOUSANDS of full shank 464 bronze solids in full power loads with no problem of any kind. The wive's tales apply equally to the banded & grooved rhetoric as well.

Thanks for the support and as usual the proof is in the results! ( the .395's made a one hole group at 100 as well )

quote:

The wive's tales apply equally to the banded & grooved rhetoric as well.

I gotta say that I do not sign on to this with regard to double rifles. I have had great sucess with North Forks so it isn't a mono vs steel jacketed issue for me. But I do believe that, as MAC said, to keep the ribs and solder together, you need the many wide grooves and no solid shank to accomodate displaced material.

On the other hand, if your bullet in .475" weighed, say, 470grs, I'm damn sure I could find a load that made it shoot great!!

JPK

In my 450 No2 the following bullets hit to the same place:
450 North Fork FN and Cup Point [89 gr of RL 15]
All the rest with 88gr of RL 15
480 Woodleigh Soft and Solid
Hornady 500gr Soft and 500gr old style Solid
500gr Swift A Frame
350 Hornadys. I use 81 gr of IMR 3031 with the 350gr because I have a lot of it on hand.

I went to the source on this and must correct what I had been told by one bullet maker (who got out of the biz at the dawn of monometal landed bullets) and that is that there are 2 copper alloys but nominal hardness is nearly the same, bullets should be .475 and of the 2 best out designs there it can only be concluded that they are just different.

So has anyone used full diameter full shank bronze solids in a Blaser S2?? What does Blaser say regarding this?