After years of shooting Barnes bullets, I've switched to the CEB line of projectiles. This target represents the first 2 shots at the max load of 105 grains of IMR 4007SSC, BBW #13 570 grain CEB from my Merkel in 500NE. 2105 and 2119 fps, 1 L, 1 R, no crossing. 50 yards off of sticks. The 3 inch or so right placement is probably just me.

I'm ready!

I definitely wouldn't whine about that load.
Sam gave me the load they used for the .470 and I hope it shoots as well.

It was a good day at the range today Pagosa! 68 degrees F, sunny with no wind, had my oldest son with me on his last day before returning to college, and got both of my doubles shooting correctly.

Some days are better than others!

I'm anxious to see some pics of that new Searcy you have on the way!

Todd,

This is why they became the "go to" bullet in my doubles. I have had only outstanding results each time I've tried them.

Great job!

quote:

Originally posted by CCMDoc:
Todd,

This is why they became the "go to" bullet in my doubles. I have had only outstanding results each time I've tried them.

Great job!

I'm with you Doc. I need to shoot something capable of biting back with the new bullets now!

Hey Doc, do you think there are better in your doubles than woodleighs???

quote:

Originally posted by zhaba:
Hey Doc, do you think there are better in your doubles than woodleighs???

Hi Zhaba,
I do think so for a few reasons - but the story goes back to long-ago experiences.

In the 70s and 80s I did all of my hunting excusively with a 44 magnum handgun (S&W 29 then 629 then Ruger SRH). I also did a lot of bullet casting and had a Corbin press to swage various jacketed bullets. What I learned back then was that Keith-style and SSK profile bullets (the moulds I had threw a bullet that had a profile somewhat like the Barnes Banded Solids of today) all penetrated media, trees and game better than any round nose profile I tried. I was convinced then that FN bullets penetrated better than RN for the same weight and velocity.

When I got my first 600OK, I also bought a mess of Bridger bullets. What is one of the first things a person does when getting a big boomer?

"Let's see what this can go through..."

Steel 55 gallon drums filled with sand, trees of various diameters, dry newsprint, wet news print, stacks of glossy magazines with the best "articles" removed and saved for future drooling ... I mean reading ...

Bridgers always - and I mean not by a few inches, more like feet - outpenetrated the solid Woodleighs.

Fast forward to my experiences with CEB bullets and my doubles. I didn't re-do penetration tests - I don't have the time or stamina that I did back then to do all that I had done. In my mind, I had been there and done that and was confident the results would be the same. Michael458 and srose have done a hell of a job and in a much more scientific manner both in media and on game. Those gargantuan efforts confirmed the lessons I had learned from my small sample and experience.

What I can say of the CEB bullets in my doubles is that they regulate well and easily; that they seem to do so at a variety of velocities and with a variety of powders; that the hollow points (Non-Cons) and solids shoot to the same point of aim despite differences in weights and that I have taken leopard and elephant with the kind of results I would hope for and expect.

Would the results have been different with Woodleighs? I don't know, probably not but I am confident tht the CEBs would do the job if I did mine and you know that confidence is paramount in hunting.

One small analogy - for most of my medical career, an abdominal aortic aneurysm would be repaired by going through the anterior abdominal wall. It is a HUGE operation. Patients would remain on ventilators for 24-48 hours; in the ICU for a week, in the hospital for a week or two beyond and have a slow recovery at home.
In the recent past, we have embraced endovascular repair. These patients go home the day following the repair. My patient of last week is on a plane as I type flying to California to give a way his neice at a wedding. That doesnt mean open repair is no good - it is as good now and even better than in the past and we still do it in certain patients. But better technology gives us more options and sometimes newer is better.

Sorry for the long-winded response - and I haven't even had my 3rd cup of coffee yet ...

Thanks

Also Doc, don't forget that in Michael458's strain testing, while the Woodleigh soft nose was the benchmark, the Woodleigh solid had one of the highest strain measurement recordings!

That's not to say that the Woodleigh solid is necessarily unsafe in doubles, but many will tell you that bullets like the TSX are unsafe while returning significantly lower strain numbers.

Consistently, the CEBs produced strain numbers at the bottom of the scale, except for the original Kynoch bullets.

I have to say that I'm sold on them at this point as well!

I've got them in the .458 and the .474 calibers. I'm getting my new to me Searcy double in today and have some loaded up, along with the Woodleighs (softs and solids) as well as some Barnes TSX and Banded Solids. Looking forward to trying them before I can't shoot again for 6 months. I hope they shoot as well out of one of Butch's rifles as they do in yours! Todd, you dog! 68 degrees? We are averaging about 5 below each morning. Warms up to anywhere from 30 to 43 during the day. You can keep it though. I am in the propane business and the warm weather doesn't help me at all. LOL

quote:

Originally posted by pagosawingnut:
I've got them in the .458 and the .474 calibers. I'm getting my new to me Searcy double in today and have some loaded up, along with the Woodleighs (softs and solids) as well as some Barnes TSX and Banded Solids. Looking forward to trying them before I can't shoot again for 6 months. I hope they shoot as well out of one of Butch's rifles as they do in yours! Todd, you dog! 68 degrees? We are averaging about 5 below each morning. Warms up to anywhere from 30 to 43 during the day. You can keep it though. I am in the propane business and the warm weather doesn't help me at all. LOL

Hey Pagosa, I lived between Divide and Cripple Creek for 5 years. 9,557 Elevation. Maybe had 3 months of Non-Winter each year. Texas winters and Colorado summers. If only the two could meet. But then they would call that California, tax us to death, and take away our guns!

Propane business, eh? I remember those $700 per month bills when our temps averaged -25F!! No wonder you have that new toy from Butch coming in today!!

Todd,

Have you always shot IMR 4007SSC in your Merkel .500?

Lane,

I've also used H380. Those are the only 2 powders I've tried in the 500. Reason being the Barnes #4 Manual recommends IMR 4007SSC for the TSX and H380 for the Banded Solid. I just used this data for the CEBs as a starting point.

Todd,
Yes...I have seen those powders listed in the Barnes manual...but...you are the first person that I have seen to be using them in the .500 NE.

Is IMR 4007SSC better in your rifle than H380? You should be able get both solid and NonCon to shoot with the same powder.

Lane,

I am using the 4007SSC for both the solid and non-con. They are shooting to the same POI. I'm happy with this load. I didn't try the H380 with the CEBs because the 4007SSC is producing excellent results.

When I was shooting the Barnes bullets, I used the different powders as indicated for the TSX and BBS. I decided to just use one powder type when switching to the CEBs and it seems to have been the right move.

I remember from some other posts that you just got a new double? What make? I think I remember it being a 500 also. You were also working with RL-17? Are you having problems with getting your rifle to shoot to regulation?

One other comment, this load of 105 grains of IMR 4007SSC produced just over 2,100fps whereas this same load with the TSX gave right at 2.000fps. I never used the 4007SSC with the BBS, only the H380. Velocity with 380 and the BBS was also near 2,000fps. Point being that the combo of IMR 4007SSC along with the CEBs, both BBW#13 and Non-Cons, seem to have produced an extra 100fps which brings the performance closer to the traditional benchmark of 2,150fps.

No...I have my rifle regulating with CEB BBW# 13 solids and Non-Cons using R-15...but I had to play with it a little.

I an currently at 96 gr. But I think the group needs some speeding up so I was going to go up to 97 and shoot again. See below.



I am at ~2035 fps with 96 gr of R-15 and that is approaching max if not there already...although no signs of high pressure are visible in my cases.

Was just thinking of other alternatives if I needed them. I think R-17 is a possibility although the data is lacking.

I remember that target now Lane. Non-cons on the top 2 and the bottom 4 BBW#13s? Looks like you are just about there to me. I would think that extra grain of RL-15 would tighten up the solids nicely. Please repost once you have a chance to try it. I would be interested in how it works out.

Can you tell me what quality has you interested in RL-17? Difference in recoil, load density, velocity? I don't think I have any data on that powder and don't know much about it.

Actually...the 2 bottom most R&L ar the solids...the other four are Non-Con's. So...they actually shoot to the exact same place.

R-17 is a little slower than R-15 and very similar to IMR-4350...maybe a little faster. IMR-4350 is SRose's favorite .500 NE powder...and a standby of Graeme Wrights for this caliber. R-15 has gotten really popular for less felt recoil. R-17...might be the best of both worlds...give a little more velocity than 15 with less recoil than 4350. Don't know...just a thought.

Gonna convince Sam & Michael to work it up in Sam's .500 to see what they think.

When you shot the RL-17, was it the velocity alone that spooked you, or did you have some pressure signs also? Where did you find the RL-17 data you used?

Todd,

The day was bright and I had my chrono in too bright of sun. I got a real high reading on the first round of R-17...did not shoot any more.

I was shooting NF FPS's at that time...trying to find a powder that would regulate them.

Mike Brady who initially owned North Fork Bullets gave me a starting load of R-17 based on his presure work of R-15 in the .500 NE and work in other calibers with R-17.

He also cautioned me to use my chrono and proecced cautiously until he shot some in his .500 NE pressure barrel...which he never has gotten around to doing.

Todd

Great to see the bullets working for you like that! That is what they are supposed to do! Excellent, just excellent! I understand you were at DSC, damn, hate I missed you!

Got to meet Lane! But did not get to spend enough time with! Hi Lane!

Anyway, talking 500! When I get the PTs back from RSI, Sam and I plan to install strain gages, both ends, and do pressure tests with various loads, along with barrel strains on the 500s! So it should be some good work for you guys! We look forward to it as well!

Michael

Hey Michael,

Sorry I missed you as well. I've been going to the DSC show for years but am new to AR so I have to admit not knowing about all the AR related events and how closely the two are tied to each other. There were several guys I had hoped to meet up with but kept getting sidetracked.

I'll certainly make an effort to participate in more AR activities next time.

Are you going to SCI. I will be there so give me a shout if you are going.

Dan sent the additional box of CEBs after receiving the box that was short. Great customer service! As mentioned, I didn't need an entire new box, just the 3 bullets, but he sure took care of me.

I have to say that I like the CEBs in both of my doubles. You may have seen my other post concerning the 9.3. I FINALLY got them to shoot correctly with and without the scope. For whatever reason, the load just needed a bit of filler. Strange what affects the performance of double rifles. But then again, that's why I love/hate them!

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

I never used the 4007SSC with the BBS, only the H380. Velocity with 380 and the BBS was also near 2,000fps.

H380 is very similar to R-15 isn't it???

I'm not sure Lane. I'll check my manuals when I get home in a few days.

Todd

Yes, well, maybe we can make a plan to catch up at next years DSC. And yes, it's easy to get side tracked there!

No SCI for me.

Dan is a good man. I swear we hit the jackpot when we found Dan and CEB. Not many would have been as patient and willing to go with us through the process and the different prototypes needed to get the bullets where they are now.

As for doubles being a little strange, I concur with that, but it happens a lot with other cartridges and rifles as well! I have seen a hell of a lot of really weird things in these bolt guns and cartridges as well! Weird strange things are not limited to doubles! The weird is just, well, "Doubled" is all! HEH HEH..............

Enjoy
Michael

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

Weird strange things are not limited to doubles! The weird is just, well, "Doubled" is all! HEH HEH..............

Enjoy
Michael

With airplanes, we always said that hanging another engine on a plane doesn't double the aircraft's complexity, it quadruples it! I think the same can be said for two barrels on a rifle.

Michael,

When you and Sam get back to shooting the the .500...It would be cool if you could try R-17 as we have discussed but also some IMR-4007ssc both with CEB BBW#13 solids.

I'll be happy to buy the powder and bullets for the test!

Comments mainly for CCMDoc . Is the strain directly related to ease of finding velocity and powder that will regulate ? If so shouldn't great effort be made to find minimum strain by adjusting diameter and driving bands ? A single barrel should also benefit to make a light barrel ,like my Kimber, easier to find an accurate load ?
Changes in technology ? In my field of metallurgy we often use microscopes .In the '60s we had 1000x optical ,now we have electron beam types with 1,000,000 X .That's some WOW factor !

quote:

Originally posted by mete:
Comments mainly for CCMDoc .
Changes in technology ? In my field of metallurgy we often use microscopes .In the '60s we had 1000x optical ,now we have electron beam types with 1,000,000 X .That's some WOW factor !

I assume you meant only this part for me - the first part is Michael's realm.

You are so right about the amazing advances is so many areas. That's why I appreciate Micheal, Sam and Dan's efforts to explore new avenues in bullet design. Of course the stuff that worked before still works today - but why not look for and use something that works better?

Todd - If you watch the newest DVD's you picked up from me at DSC, check out the first elephant I shoot in Zim with the .577NE and the CEB's. My 2nd shot is a right hip shot as he's running away, and you can see the bullet hit and make a complete pass through. My last shot, is a shoulder shot which drops the bull, and you can clearly see the bullet has exited on the opposite side.

Now I'm no bullet expert, but I was really impressed with that kind of penetration on a bull elephant. It's CEB's for me, from now on!

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Todd - If you watch the newest DVD's you picked up from me at DSC, check out the first elephant I shoot in Zim with the .577NE and the CEB's. My 2nd shot is a right hip shot as he's running away, and you can see the bullet hit and make a complete pass through. My last shot, is a shoulder shot which drops the bull, and you can clearly see the bullet has exited on the opposite side.

Now I'm no bullet expert, but I was really impressed with that kind of penetration on a bull elephant. It's CEB's for me, from now on!

Aaron,

Are the latest DVDs 4&5? I was about to order but wanted to be sure I get the one with the aforementioned elephant vs. CEB.

Thanks,
Paul

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Todd - If you watch the newest DVD's you picked up from me at DSC, check out the first elephant I shoot in Zim with the .577NE and the CEB's. My 2nd shot is a right hip shot as he's running away, and you can see the bullet hit and make a complete pass through. My last shot, is a shoulder shot which drops the bull, and you can clearly see the bullet has exited on the opposite side.

Now I'm no bullet expert, but I was really impressed with that kind of penetration on a bull elephant. It's CEB's for me, from now on!

Aaron, I did notice that on both shots. Impressive. I also meant to tell you in person but it slipped my mind, you demonstrated some fine shooting in those DVD's and on more than one occasion. Specifically, the Giant Eland shot comes to mind as does the Waterbuck!

Good stuff man.

quote:

Is the strain directly related to ease of finding velocity and powder that will regulate ?If so shouldn't great effort be made to find minimum strain by adjusting diameter and driving bands ?

Mete

I think that between Sam, Myself, and Dan we have made a MASSIVE effort towards the understanding of this, and actually finding the best combination for the least Barrel Strain, Most Accuracy, ability to regulate, Solid/NonCon POI, and general ease of loading the BBW#13 Solids/NonCons, and of most importance "Terminal Performance". And as far as I am concerned, have succeeded in this on every single front.

The study however is not over by any stretch, and research does in fact continue!

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Michael,

When you and Sam get back to shooting the the .500...It would be cool if you could try R-17 as we have discussed but also some IMR-4007ssc both with CEB BBW#13 solids.

I'll be happy to buy the powder and bullets for the test!

Lane

No worries buddy! I have RL-17 on hand, a # of IMR 4007SC won't be an issue, have PLENTY of BBW#13s.

Got you covered! Thanks however!

PT units should be back by next week, I imagine Sam and I will start making a Plan!

M