quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by tygersman:
So, it's still somewhere between 9-20% increase in recoil on top of pretty significant recoil.

Dead is dead. Physics is physics. You want the theoretical advantage, you pay the theoretical piper.

No, actually it's a 9% increase in recoil for an 18% increase in effectiveness, and that is a pretty significant trade off.


Again, nothing at all wrong with the 470. This discussion is a result of statements made about the 470s performance compared to the 500. Not as to whether or not either is unsuitable for the task at hand.

Todd:

I was actually referring to the range of recoil difference as set forth by both you (9%) and Malek (20%) - see your and Malek' posts above. As to "effectiveness", do you really want to hitch your car to the Taylor KO train? Effectiveness as to what? The goal of our hunting, which I take is to dispatch rather large and potentially dangerous game? There is no magic in the 500 that makes it realistically superior to the 470 in relation to game - if anything, it's just math in any given circumstance. The math is much more a function of bullet design, locale of entry, angle of entry and velocity of the bullet - and probably something as variable and unscientific as the constitution of any given animal shot.

I get it. But at this point you're really arguing about your favorite pizza toppings or colors or movies. You like the 500 over the 470, but you agree that the 470 is suitable for the task at hand. Why in the world would you voluntarily increase recoil and use a weapon harder to find ammo for in the only place you'd ever really need it? ANSWER: Because it's your prerogative, and it's fun. I applaud you for it. But you do for the same reason I shoot a 404 over a 416, because it amuses me, and I'm not going to try to justify it.

Denial. It's also a river in Africa!!

Last word is yours.

Cheers.

ANd if penetration (however slight) is your game, then the 450NE's better than both!

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
ANd if penetration (however slight) is your game, then the 450NE's better than both!

I would say that's an accurate statement Jorge concerning penetration based on sectional density, all other factors being equal.

.458 500 gr bullet having a SD of .341
.474 500 gr bullet having a SD of .318
.510 570 gr bullet having a SD of .314

from the Barnes website and all shooting those bullets at the same 2150fps nominal velocity.

However, just as in the .510 increase over the .474 in terms of frontal area and it's impact value when striking an animal, the .474 holds an edge over the .458. Not as pronounced of a difference, but it is there. .036" increase from .474 to .510 but only a .016" increase between .458 and .474.

Again, all in rifles that weigh roughly the same with recoil that is roughly the same. If all else is roughly the same, why not go with the biggest hammer? The 500NE!! Who said it best; "The 500NE is what all the other NE rounds hope to be when they grow up"!!

Noted! Truth be known, if I had to do it all over again I would have gone with a 500. There, I said it!

jorge,

No flies on the 450NE that's what all other big bores tried to be after it was banded in India.

Sam

quote:

Originally posted by srose:
jorge,

No flies on the 450NE that's what all other big bores tried to be after it was banded in India.

Sam

That and the 450 has a certain coolness factor due to it's history!

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by malek:


We find out that the Recoil Energy for the 470 NE is 69 f-lb and Recoil Velocity is 21 f/s. On the other hand The Recoil Energy for the 500 NE is 86 f-lb and Recoil Velocity is 23 f/s. That is a whopping 17 lb-s increase in Recoil Energy, which boils down to 20% increase. This is quite a bit of increase over the 470.


Best regards

Malek
Good shooting/hunting and God's best

Malek,

I almost hate to bring this part of the discussion back up but I finally found one of my references to the additional recoil, or lack thereof, in the 500NE over the 470NE. It comes from Chuck Hawks' recoil chart and is cross referenced with the book by Pierre van der Walt: "African Dangerous Game Cartridges" which is a very recent but highly regarded book on big bore rifles.

On page 397, Pierre lists performance parameters of the 470NE as being a 500gr bullet at 2150fps, generating 5,133 ft/lbs of energy, a Taylor KO value of 72.9, and recoil in an 11 pound rifle as 70.2 ft/lbs.

On page 422, he lists performance parameters of the 500NE as being a 570gr bullet at 2,150gps, generating 5,852 ft/lbs of energy, a Taylor KO value of 89.3, and recoil in the same weight of an 11 pound rifle as 77.2 ft/lbs.

That gives a Taylor KO number for the 500NE which is 18.4% higher than the 470NE but an increase in recoil of 9%. A 2 for 1 benefit if you will, based on percentages. An increase in recoil, with an identical weight rifle of 7.2 ft/lbs which exactly matches the recoil chart by Chuck Hawks for an 8.5 lb rifle in 243 Win, firing a 75gr projectile at 3400fps. And that is a relatively heavy 243. The recoil numbers in a 7 or 7.5 pound 243 make the 500's recoil increase seem even less of an issue comparatively speaking. I would say these numbers very closely reflect my experience with the two big bore calibers.

Taking it a step further for cross reference, Mr. Hawks' recoil numbers for the two calibers state the 470's recoil as 69.3 ft/lbs in an 11 pound rifle and for the 500NE, 74.5 ft/lbs in a 12 pound rifle. Very much in line with Pierre's recoil numbers. So his numbers are not exactly apples to apples since his 500 is a pound heavier, but still, it is a 5.2 ft/lbs difference in recoil, which is less than 1/2 of the 243 Win's recoil in the 7 pound rifle. Again, these numbers would be in line with what I perceive to be the difference in felt recoil between the two, and importantly, with the proportionately higher Taylor KO factor.

If you would like to review his recoil chart, it can be found here: http://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm

Sorry to bring this back to the top as the discussion had pretty much wound down, but as I've stated repeatedly here and elsewhere, I try to form my opinions on data that I can refer back to inorder to have what I hope can be interpreted as an "informed opinion". I always enjoy a lively debate and never object to opposing views to my own as it challenges me to think and reconfirm my stance. As a result, I was trying to find the references I used to originally form this opinion of the 500 having a disproportionally increased field performance on animals compared to the slight increase in recoil. I was having a little trouble finding my reference until stumbling back over Pierre's data.

So, just more food for thought my friend.

Hello my friend:


I was not sure if I was going to go back and carry on this discussion or not but here it surfaced up again so I figured it is good to answer it once more, hopping by doing so, is to bring this whole to rest, except for a joke here or there.

Todd I did the same thing back in one of my posts in matter of fact in more than one. Where I did compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges rather than comparing apples to oranges and in a very scientific way relying on data and numbers using two different calculators in order to check out my numbers. Even I did provide the link to the calculators which I used to achieve my numbers and invited you and everybody else to check them out. These are probably the same calculators that MR Chuck Hawks uses, there is only one equation or perhaps two to calculate the recoil energy and they will brings you practically the same results.



“my rifle weighs 10LB, taking that as the thresh hold weight for both 470 and 500 rifles and having both of them driving their bullets at 2150f/s. with RL 19 (109 g for the 470 and 113 g for the 500) under the same style bullet in order to achieve aproximently the 2150f/s desired velocity with the same pressure level, out of a 26" barrel. Edge goes to the 470 24” faster with 1500 PSI less pressure (Any Shot You Want) negligible but still there.

We find out that the Recoil Energy for the 470 NE is 69 f-lb and Recoil Velocity is 21 f/s. On the other hand The Recoil Energy for the 500 NE is 86 f-lb and Recoil Velocity is 23 f/s. That is a whopping 17 lb-s increase in Recoil Energy, which boils down to 20% increase. This is quite a bit of increase over the 470.
In my calculation I tried to compare apples to apples that is why I used the same weight rifle, same velocity same bullet style from same manufacture, same powder and same pressure. in order to stay as objective as possible. Also I did use couple of Internet calculators to derive my numbers from.

http://www.huntamerica.com/recoil_calculator/

http://www.handloads.com/calc/recoil.asp

Both of them gave almost the same results, a difference of 17 f-lb of recoil energy between the two.

But if you chose to believe Charlie Hawks that is your choice, who am I to tell different.”



As for your other part of the discussion, I did use the meplat of the bullet rather than the full diameter of the bullet, because the meplat is where the shocking power is coming from and not from the full diameter of the bullet. Because it is the part that comes in contact with the animal rather than the shaft which is not touching the sides of the wound and traveling in a vacuum. So IMHO and with all due respect to MR Chuck Hawk’s opinion and others, (there are a lot of writers out there who the same mistake) using the full diameter as basses to get the shock values/effect. This method is not an accurate method and yields misleading results from the get go. So basing ones information on not so accurate results leads to wrong conclusions, while one thinking all the time that he is right, in reality he is wrong because he is relying on faulty data mean while his conclusions are wrong, again based on that faulty data he is using.

What I am trying to say here my friend is that; the formulas that I used do not differ much from what Mr. Chuck Hawks used. Except the numbers I entered where that of the meplat diameter rather than the bullet diameter. That is why you see my results differ from his, especially when it comes to applying Taylor’s KO formula. I am including my calculations again for you to look at it again, and try to calculate the KO using the meplat rather than the bullet diameter.



“Now for the heck of it, I wanted to find out really what is the difference using the number’s approach. I did use the solid CEB bullet for comparison because we know the meplat diameter for this bullet. I did use the meplat diameter rather than the full caliber of the bullet, because it is the point of contact that causes the shock effect and creates a hydrostatic flow around the bullet in where the its shank is simply sailing through a vacuum, not touching any of the surrounding tissues. I came up with these interesting figures.

We know that the meplat of the CEB bullet is 67 percent of the caliber. So the meplat of the 500 = .35"and that of the 470 = .32", a difference of only .03”

Now using a velocity of 2150f/s for both cartridges and the relevant bullet weight for each cartridge and applying it to the Taylor’s KO formula which many believe it to be the closest thing to calculate the knock down power of a cartridge, I did end up with these numbers.
The KO of the 500 = 54.5 f-lb and the KO of the 470 = 49.1 f-lb, for a difference of 5.4 f-lb which boils down to exactly 10 percent more in favor of the 500.

If we use the 2250f/s velocity for the 470 we will end up with 51.4 f-lb which is only a 3.1 f-lb difference or just a tad under 6 percent more knocking power in favor of the 500.

So the edge is there for the 500 as I mentioned in my previous posts but now we have it in exact numbers and percentage. I reality I don’t think I would like to subject myself to 20 percent more recoil in order to gain 6 percent in shock KO power on the target.

Cheers”



Now everybody can make mistakes and believe me I am not immune to them (if you can believe that). As it has been discussed here at another thread on AR in the last day or so, that is with the evolving info and data changes that takes place constantly and coming to more deeper understanding of things. Revised opinions and corrections for the info data must take place and that not to say that some know better than others, but that is the nature of the beast, everything is evolving so is knowledge.

For instance in Mr Hawk’s recoil calculation table he lists the RE of the 500/465 driving 480gr bullet at 2150f/s is 60.7 f-lb in an 11lb rifle, while the RE of the 470 at the same velocity (2150f/s) out of the same weight rifle (11lb) using 500gr gullet is 69.3f-lb. Now that is an 8.6lb difference in RE just because we changed the weight of the bullet by 20 grains and probably the weight of the powder by few grains ( I just checked one of my reloading manuals and both cartridges use the same amount of powder to achieve the same velocity) . That does not make sense at all, I would say 3 to 4 f-lb on the outset but definitely not an 8.6f-lb. does that make Mr Hawk wrong or cast doubt about his knowledge or the thinks that he wrote. Absolutely not but mistakes can and do happen some times.



Best regards

Malek
Good shooting/hunting and God's best.

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
Noted! Truth be known, if I had to do it all over again I would have gone with a 500. There, I said it!

And have your brains rattled and the snot kicked out of you.

In all honesty jorge the 450 could be the best all around caliber there is and in your hands/shooting I believe you have nothing to worry about in them tight spots where elephants are bearing down.



Best regards

Malek
Good shooting/hunting and God's best.

Actually, Malek, I must suggest the mistake is yours in your latest response.

Mr. Hawks data was cited in my first posts on the subject. This latest round of data came from Pierre van der Walt's new and highly regarded book, African Dangerous Game Cartridges. Mr. Hawks data was restated only to prove that two leading authorities on the subject have provided almost identical data.

All of the Taylor KO values came from Pierre's book, not Hawks. But if you really want to delve into the KO data, are you really saying only the meplat contributes and not the entire bullet diameter? That would be strange indeed as Taylor developed that theory of measurement back when there was only the round nosed Kynock bullets. They had no flat meplat to speak of?

Furthermore, I did show the Taylor KO values for both the 300Wby and 375H&H. I haven't seen many flat nosed bullets in the 300Wby.

All this is academic however and just numbers. Numbers that support my position, but only numbers nonetheless. The fact remains that almost to a man, when a 470 and 500 of the same weight and stock design, and those are critical factors to get a good comparrison, are taken to the range for the "Pepsi" challenge, the recoil difference will be reported as LESS than the 9% I cited. Now if you take a K-gun in 470 with its straight stock and compare it to a 500 Merkel with excessive drop at the heel, or even one of the older model Heym's, yea, you'll notice a difference, but that is stock design, not caliber. Merkel to Merkel, or K-gun to K-gun, same same.

But again, this discussion all goes back to your statements of being able to hot rod the 470 to outperform the 500. All else aside that we have discussed, I don't see where that is possible. All of the data that shows a 2200+fps 470 load also comes with a warning of excess pressure. If we are going to work with excess pressure, which I would highly discourage, the very same could be done with the 500.

Again, that's what this is all about. The 470 cannot be hopped up to exceed the 500 in a any way that the 500 cannot be similarly hopped up.

Cheers buddy.

Anytime I see Taylor's KO numbers and the Pepsi Challenge in the same post, I know there is some serious science at play.

But for sure, there is no need to "hop up" loads for the 470 or 500. I don't think that 2200 fps in the 470 necessarily = excess pressure. I believe there are plenty of Searcy 470s at that or above, and I seriously doubt Butch is regulating his guns at excessive pressure levels.

Tell you what, I'll cast some chicken bones and dance backwards around the bonfire tonight, and if the great spirits (or Jack Daniels) advise me that I too can cast off the yoke of mathematical oppression, I'm buying a 500 tomorrow.

quote:

Originally posted by tygersman:
Anytime I see Taylor's KO numbers and the Pepsi Challenge in the same post, I know there is some serious science at play.

But for sure, there is no need to "hop up" loads for the 470 or 500. I don't think that 2200 fps in the 470 necessarily = excess pressure. I believe there are plenty of Searcy 470s at that or above, and I seriously doubt Butch is regulating his guns at excessive pressure levels.

Tell you what, I'll cast some chicken bones and dance backwards around the bonfire tonight, and if the great spirits (or Jack Daniels) advise me that I too can cast off the yoke of mathematical oppression, I'm buying a 500 tomorrow.

The Nile. That's the name of the river! Phonetically the same as Denial!!

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Actually, Malek, I must suggest the mistake is yours in your latest response.

Mr. Hawks data was cited in my first posts on the subject. This latest round of data came from Pierre van der Walt's new and highly regarded book, African Dangerous Game Cartridges. Mr. Hawks data was restated only to prove that two leading authorities on the subject have provided almost identical data.

All of the Taylor KO values came from Pierre's book, not Hawks. But if you really want to delve into the KO data, are you really saying only the meplat contributes and not the entire bullet diameter? That would be strange indeed as Taylor developed that theory of measurement back when there was only the round nosed Kynock bullets. They had no flat meplat to speak of?

Furthermore, I did show the Taylor KO values for both the 300Wby and 375H&H. I haven't seen many flat nosed bullets in the 300Wby.

All this is academic however and just numbers. Numbers that support my position, but only numbers nonetheless. The fact remains that almost to a man, when a 470 and 500 of the same weight and stock design, and those are critical factors to get a good comparrison, are taken to the range for the "Pepsi" challenge, the recoil difference will be reported as LESS than the 9% I cited. Now if you take a K-gun in 470 with its straight stock and compare it to a 500 Merkel with excessive drop at the heel, or even one of the older model Heym's, yea, you'll notice a difference, but that is stock design, not caliber. Merkel to Merkel, or K-gun to K-gun, same same.

But again, this discussion all goes back to your statements of being able to hot rod the 470 to outperform the 500. All else aside that we have discussed, I don't see where that is possible. All of the data that shows a 2200+fps 470 load also comes with a warning of excess pressure. If we are going to work with excess pressure, which I would highly discourage, the very same could be done with the 500.

Again, that's what this is all about. The 470 cannot be hopped up to exceed the 500 in a any way that the 500 cannot be similarly hopped up.

Cheers buddy.

Hello Todd:

If you go back to all my writing you never find anywhere that I mentioned that the 470 can be hopped up to outperform the 500.

I mainly stated that some factory loads namely Federal that runs a bit hot in the 470, around (2200f/s) which you may be able to buy in a pinch will definitely bring the performance of the 470 closer to that of the 500 especially if the 500 ammo did not live up to the Factory advertised velocities, which is a norm in the industry.

On the other hand I always maintained and still do, that the 500 held the edge.

No my friend I don’t think I made a mistake, this is the link you have provided http://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm and the name that the recoil tables were listed under is "Rifle Recoil Table By Chuck Hawks".

Never the less, the fact remains that his RE numbers for the 470 NE where a bit off, and did not make any sense. Also in his calculations for the RE of the 500 he was using a 12lb rifle mean while he used an 11lb rifle to calculate the RE of the 470. A I lb difference in the weight of the rifle, translates to quite a bit of reduction in RE. When I did the calculations myself, I found out that he was spot on in his numbers when it came to the 500/465 and the 500 RE calculations and was off in his calculation for the 470, which it suppose to be 65.77 f-lb rather than 69.3 f-lb then the numbers will make sense when you compare the difference between the 470 and the 500/465.
When I used the 11 lb weight for both rifles, the number for the 500 jumped up to 81.07 f-lb rather than the 74.5 f-lb that both he and I had gotten using the 12lb rifle for the 500. I still came up with the same old results, a difference of 15.3 f-lb, which boils down to 19.9 percent of RE that the 500 was generating more than the 470. No ifs ends or buts about it.


Most of us are aware of the fact that when it comes to buffalo, the effect of the caliber is basically very minimal and buff can soak a lot of lead no matter what the caliber is, if it is not hit well in the vitals and that first shot did not destroy a major part of its autonomy. So it does not matter what you hit them with be it a 577, 500, or 470. If that first shot did not count, you can rest assured that you are in for a good deal of tracking.

So in my mind the discussion was centered on elephant and solids, since elephant hunting exclusively is done with solids. That is why I did write about the KO power factor using the meplat as the contact point rather than the whole diameter of the bullet.


Back in the eighties when the big bore revolver hunting cartridges development were at its peak and Ross Seyfiard with many others were pioneering that effort and were writing about it. They started to encounter bullet effectiveness and penetration problems etc. At the time the Keith bullet design was the standard that bullets were judged by and everybody believed back then that the shoulder of the bullet was the part that created the wound channel was cutting through the animal. Which it was attributed to the way the shoulder of the bullet would cut a perfect shoulder diameter on paper targets. Back then Ross kind of introduced a gentleman by the name of Veral Smith to the public (at least to me) through his writings. Now Mr. Smith is the one who developed, designed and introduced the now well known WFN, WFLN and other bullet nose designs to the lead bullets market, which became the new standard that every other bullet was measured buy. It is pretty much like the meplat design on the CEB/north fork bullets.


After a lengthy research and development Mr. Smith was able to prove to the lead bullet shooting and hunter’s crowd, that the meplat of the bullet is the part that does the cutting on the bullet when it comes in contact with flesh and not the shoulder and that the rest of the bullet would be travelling pretty much through vacuum created by the shock wave from the meplat. Also through his new design the myth of the cutting ability of the shoulder on the Keith bullet was dispelled and the supremacy of the Keith Shoulder design was dislodged. The Keith bullet had a much smaller meplat than the WFN or WFLN designs and it used to zip through animals with little shocking/stopping effect despite the almost caliber size shoulder that it displayed. On the other hand the WFN had a much more visible effect on animals and dispatched them much quicker despite the fact that the Meplat on that bullet was smaller in diameter than that of the shoulder on the Keith bullet from the same caliber.


So yes my friend I am saying when an elephant is shot in the skull, the meplat of the bullet is the part that is delivering the shock (KO) to the animal and not the whole diameter of the bullet.


Cheers

Best regards

Malek
Good shooting/hunting and God's best.

A great powder but work up until your gun regulates! I use it in my 470 with great results.

quote:

Originally posted by luvtoreload:
A great powder but work up until your gun regulates! I use it in my 470 with great results.

Many folks reported hear of having great results with it, unfortunately it did not do as good as I expected it to do in my gun. I never was able to get velocities above the 2000f/s with recommended loads, bearing in mind though that I tried only with two different bullets.


Best regards

Malek
Good shooting/hunting and God's best