Gentlemen,

After reading the 470 vs 500 (Penetration) thread I thought I would share the following are extracts of multiple posts by Mike70560, a DRSS member, within the Terminal Bullet Performance thread in the Big Bore Forum.

Very similar test have been conducted in BB bolt action calibers with similar test and field results, though field results indicate even greater penetration, so I believe Mike’s tests will translate equally to field results.

It is a long post for which I apologize but to do credit to Mike it should be fully posted. I believe you will find it of value for your DR bullet selection. Enjoy!

quote:

Originally posted by Mike70560:
I have completed the first round of penetration testing.

Caliber: 470 Nitro Express
Rifle: Krieghoff Double
Brass: Jamison
Primer: Remington 9 1/2M
Powder: Reloder 15

The test box is fabricated from 2 by 6 pine boards and is 72” long.
Test media consisted of ¼” luan, 12” of saturated newspaper, 2 by 6 treated pine (shooting through the 1 5”8” thickness), and approximately 60” of saturated newspaper. Great care was taken to make certain the newspaper was thoroughly soaked in a tub prior to placing in the test bed.
After placing the paper in the test bed excess water was permitted to drain for 30 minutes.
The bullet entered the box at 32 feet from the muzzle.

Bullets tested:
Woodleigh 500 Grain solid @ an average impact velocity of 2065
North Fork 500 Grain solid @ an average impact velocity of 2075

First portion of the test consisted of firing consisted of firing 5 Woodleigh bullets in the test media.

Shot 1: 36” of penetration then came out of the top.
Shot 2: 40” of penetration then stopped at the top of the newspaper.
Shot 3: 33” of penetration then came out of the side
Shot 4: 40” of penetration then stopped in paper, seemed to be straight.
Shot 5: 39” of penetration then came out of the top

The first 12” of penetration was very straight line. I matched the luan from the front of the box to the 2 by 6 positioned 12” behind the luan and the bullet path was straight. Only after traveling through the 1 5/8” of treated pine did the bullet path start to deviate. Please note the bullets entered the wood at a 90º angle. I placed the 2 by 6 to simulate bone.

After this test, five more tests were conducted firing one Woodleigh and then one North Fork. Penetration was measured and the media was changed prior to the next test. While there possibly could have been variations in density from test to test, both brands of bullets were fired in each lot of paper.

All of the North Fork bullets had straightline penetration the entire length of the box. One actually exited the 2 by 6 on the back of the test bed. The others were stuck in the 2 by 6 or the plywood I added at the rear of the box to make certain the bullet did not leave the box. The engraving looked good on the bullets. None were bent or otherwise damaged.

The Woodleigh bullets performed the same as the first five; straight penetration until reaching the 2 by 6. Average reasonably straight penetration was 20” total. After that the bullet would start turning and exit the box out of the top or hit the side or stop sideways in the newsprint at an average of 41”.

If any variations in results were noted I would have continued testing. The results were very conclusive: In this media the North Fork Solids simply outperform the Woodleigh Solids in heads up testing.
The next test will be the penetration of standard 470 Nitro velocities versus 1650-1700 fps velocity. Both Woodleigh and North Fork bullets will be tested.



Above is the test box with chronograph.




Above is typical damage to the test box caused by the Woodleigh bullets veering off line.




Typical position of Woodleigh bullet found in media.




The above picture is of the typical condition of North Fork bullet after firing.




The above picture is taken from outside of box. It is a North Fork bullet after traveling through 72” of test media.



The above picture is taken from inside of box. It is another North Fork bullet after traveling through 72” of test media.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike70560:
While waiting on powder for the 1700FPS test I tried something a little different.

The test consisted of 4” of completely saturated newspaper, 1 ¼” of HardiPlank nailed to 1 5/8” of pine all on a 20º angle, 28” of water with 9 newspapers suspended in the water with each paper containing 40 pages, 5/8” of HardiPlank nailed to a another 1 5/8” of pine on a 20º angle opposite of the first setup, and then the remainder of the 72” box filled with saturated newspaper.

This is the description of HardiPlank from there site:

First, what is HardiPlank made of? HardiPlank falls in the fiber-cement siding class, which means that it is a combination of cellulose fibers, along with cement-like materials. In other words, it’s partly wood, partly cement.

It is also flexible.

I fired one .474 500 grain North Fork solid at 2070 FPS IV. It penetrated through everything in a perfect straight line. The measured deflection was less than ½” through the 71” of penetration. It stopped at the back of the box. I thought it would certainly deflect on the hardiplank at the angle particularly after going through 28” of water but did not.

The bullet looked like the other North Forks. It could be fired again.

Tomorrow it will be the Woodleigh’s turn.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike70560:
I have completed the first round of penetration testing with different velocities.

Caliber: 470 Nitro Express
Rifle: Krieghoff Double
Twist Rate: 1 in 20 (as checked with cleaning rod and jag)
Brass: Jamison
Primer: Remington 9 1/2M
Powder: Reloder 15 for standard velocity load (approximately 2100 fps)
AA 5744 for reduced loads (approximately 1700 FPS)

The test box is fabricated from 2 by 6 pine boards and is 72” long.
Test media consisted of ¼” luan, 12” of saturated newspaper, 2 by 6 treated pine (shooting through the 1 5”8” thickness), and approximately 60” of saturated newspaper. Great care was taken to make certain the newspaper was thoroughly soaked in a tub prior to placing in the test bed.
After placing the paper in the test bed excess water was permitted to drain for 30 minutes.
The bullet entered the box at 32 feet from the muzzle.

Bullets tested:
North Fork 500 Grain solid

First test consisted of firing consisted of firing 5 North Fork bullets in the test media.

Expected results:
The 2100 FPS load would travel the length of the test box.
The 1700 FPS would travel between 4 and 5 feet.


Actual results:
The 2100 FPS load result was exactly as expected. Every North fork bullets I have fired to date in the 2100 FPS range has performed exactly the same. Straight line and stuck in the wood at the back of the box. (one split the wood and exited, that is why I use scrap plywood to keep the bullets in the box)

The 1700 FPS load surprised me. Average impact velocity was 1661. It penetrated the entire length of the box and the bullets stuck in the first piece of plywood. Penetration wad dead straight. I placed the first piece of newspaper over the bullets stuck in the plywood, none were off more than 1”. The only difference was the bullets were not stuck in the plywood straight like the 2100FPS loads were.

In summary I was very, very surprised with the results. With an extra 430-440 FPS the difference in penetration was the thickness of a ¾” piece of furniture grade birch plywood. The higher velocity round did penetrate more, but not by much.

I was pleased with the consistency of the results. I take great care in setting up the test. Again the traditional load performed the same as the tests I conducted the last couple of weeks. The reduced loads all penetrated exactly the same as each other.

The next test will be Woodleighs: standard velocity versus reduced velocity.



The picture is of the first piece of newspaper placed over the plywood from the back of the box. None of the bullets are more than 1” off line through 72” of penetration.

Many thanks Mike!

I don't like this post much. Not impressed, and I think I'll keep my other comments to myself, but please refrain from using these pics anymore.

I see someone's morning coffee wasn't urine free.

Brett

How come when I pump FMJ Woodleigh's into big Buffalo or Scrub Bulls
they seem to go in a straight line and in some case exit out the other
side in the exact location I would expect ?

Not saying anything wrong with Mike's test, but what I see in the field
has been different.


Just asking, not trying to start WW III !!!

Well done Mike for the effort.

quote:

Originally posted by Extremist458:
I don't like this post much. Not impressed, and I think I'll keep my other comments to myself, but please refrain from using these pics anymore.

I did not do the test to impress you. I did it to learn what was the best bullet to shoot from my 470 and share the results. Readers can choose what to do with the information.

Although I am curious as why I should refrain from using the pictures.

Double post

I am unimpressed with the perfect bullets that you show. I find it hard to believe that this bullet was shot through 72" of medium (of which was hanging wet paper wich offers very little resistance), including plywood and green pine board and the nose is still in high polish with not a scratch on it. No offense, but copper does not do all this and come out perfect. Should I not question it? The third picture down with this caption "The above picture is of the typical condition of North Fork bullet after firing." Looks way too good. Sorry man, but at least those little driving bands would have been bent back just a hair, or at least the luster taken off by the wood it passed through. And the picture right below it with the tip sticking out of the box, it is perfect! You can still see the little nipple on the nose from machining...it's copper man, and even brass bullets show scratches. I am simply not impressed and did not want to say too much. This looks set-up to me, especially since I have shot NorthForks before, more then once, and have not found one to look like the pictures above.

My coffee might be a little strong, but that's just the way I like it. I ment no offense to anyone here, so please forgive me, but I just find this so hard to believe. Do my eyes decieve me?

Mike

Another couple of questions.

With the test media you have set up like it is, what were you trying to simulate
as I don't think it simulates an animal. Too loose ?

Extremist,

Basically you are calling me a liar. I conducted every test to the best of my ability and recorded as such. Most people commented the driving bands on the Northfork were perfect. As far as damage to the nose I do not know what to tell you. The picture of the one sticking out of the box went through 72" newspaper, a 2 by 6, plus the 2 by 6 it is sticking in.

Yes your eye deceive you or you are just a f***ing asshole.

Don't get so bent out of shape man, just voicing my opinion. Didn't even imply the bullets wouldn't do as you show. They are good bullets and would perform very much like you say, but I just have a hard time believing those bullets look so good after that test. Why so rude and defensive?

quote:

This looks set-up to me, especially since I have shot NorthForks before, more then once, and have not found one to look like the pictures above.

So you say I set up my test and I am not suppose to be offended. Maybe I should have not typed that last sentence, it is a out of character for me, but I am pissed. It does not bother me when people want to argue or discuss results but to say I staged them is not right.

I have been on the TBP thread in Big Bores since it started and this is only a snapshot of the testing I did.

Why so rude and offensive?, because even in the above post you still insinuate I lied about test results.

Extreme

What are you doing over here!!!!! I did not give you permission to come over here on this thread and start trouble!

You can only start trouble over on Terminal Performance in Big Bores where I can keep an eye on you!


Do you remember some of the tests I did with the Rhino board? Would have to look back but it was a ugly test going thru 2x4s and 1" Rhino or fiberboard, 3 sets of this stuff with wet print in between. I had actually hoped to put a great deal of stress on some of the bullets, even to the point of deforming the nose, or even bending them by putting this at "extreme" angles (pun intended). No such luck, while this did put more stress on the bullets it failed to deform anything, from my custom copper solids, the barnes, even the nosler solids, not a scratch.

Mikes tests with the plywood inserts would put hardly any stress on the bullets, to the point of not even being noticeable. I have myself inserted simple 2x4s and even 4x4s up front to stress bullets, and these solids are incredible.

I am not a metal expert, metallurgist by any stretch, but I don't think my solids in .500 are PURE copper and I would probably bet the same on the North Forks, I suspect a copper alloy of sorts. I could only bend and bang with the famous Concrete Block T'Rex tests I do now to test construction. I have not yet put the North Forks against that, but will soon, You will then see some damage to the bullet I promise! This puts tremendous stress on a bullet!

I know Mike good enough to trust his results 110% of the way! I vouch for Mike on this. And too one very important point, we testers are very sensitive concerning our work! It takes sooooooo much hard work to set up, get things right, test and get so little in return. It's worth it in the long haul, God knows I have learned so much myself in the last 6 months or so doing the test work we have done, and Mikes efforts are just as much on his side and his contributions have been excellent in the work done on the 470s! You can't have missed this over on TP? Where have you been?
Like I said, it is a tremendous amount of work and effort and with the solids we only get a few shots, so very little return before we have to start the process over again, we tend to get a little sensitive about it.

You have to read what you wrote, it's a little strong in some areas and can be taken pretty hard. I might have taken it much harder than Mike! Me and you might have had to roll around in the dirt to settle this!

Mike is new to the test work, and he has taken every precaution to make things 100% consistent as possible with what we do. His work has been 100% consistent too, all the way down the line! He has taken great pains and to the max degree to get it right and has done so.

How about cut him a little slack here, eh?

Thank You

Michael

Mike:
I don't believe, for one second, that you lied about or manipulated your test. What would be gained by that? However, my experience in the field with Woodleighs is identical with 500N's.

Extremist458:
Since you have access to these projectiles perhaps you could set up your own test and provide us the results?

Dutch

So here I will appologize for offending you, as I ment no offense, and I stated such. All tests are set-up so too speak, but I did not question the test or it's results. But at least I did not call you a "f***ing asshole".
I stated that the bullets do not look like they were the same ones used in the test, that is it, and they still do not. No, I don't think you staged the results, but the bullets look a little odd to me. I know of your testing, thank you for it, and I have seen these pictures on page 21 of TBP, and no bullet is shown there. I just notice how perfect the bullets look. I still maintain that I could be mistaken, so I'll just leave it alone. Sorry for your trouble Mike.

M458, you're right, should have stayed in my doghouse! Don't mean to piss in anyones Cheerios here, just questioning the bullets not even having a scratch. I'm sure the bullets do as the results state, but I seen those pics before on page 21 of TBP and they didn't have those bullets in them. Just thought he could have put some others in for photo ops. It wouldn't change the results, so that's not the point, but I do question the copper of the bullets. If they do look this good after going through plywood, then they are not pure copper. OK, so they are made of a harder alloy, so be it. I'll give Mike slack, but only because you asked me too M458 (just kidding, was backing off already). Sorry guys.

Rhino board is plastic, recycled too!!!!!!! I know it's tough, just putting out your candle. Maybe I'll have to start making bullets out of a tough bronze alloy then
I can understand the sensitivity of testers, as I am the same way. Sorry, but I shot them years ago and they came out of my pine board box all scratched up. Actually, the Belt Mt. Punch Bullets faired the best in my testing.
You are right about one thing, I don't have enough time to spend on viewing forums, so I cannot read everything.
I think rolling around in the dirt is a good way to settle things, so I'm up for sport! Kidding man, but I do it all the time for fun anyways, one of my hobbies. Tell you what, if you win, you can have the bottle of GG, and be king of the mountain!

Dutch44, will be doing so very soon. Have to see things for myself, it's just the way I am.

quote:

Originally posted by 500N:
Mike

Another couple of questions.

With the test media you have set up like it is, what were you trying to simulate
as I don't think it simulates an animal. Too loose ?

Hi 500N

If I may please, not speaking for Mike by any means and he can certainly give you a good response and answer too, but since I have already poked my nose in here I would like to address some of your concerns and questions too.

First the test medium cannot and does not simulate anything. It does not simulate animal tissue or any other tissue. It is a consistent test medium to test one bullet design against other bullet designs. But not just the design of a bullet itself, but many many other factors come into play too, meplat size, velocity, nose profile, construction, twist rates and more. These are some of the things we have been working with over on the Terminal Performance thread in the Big Bore section. We have learned a lot!

Now while the test medium does not simulate animal tissue, it can be correlated directly to animal tissue with enough data. I have been testing for about 15 yrs or so now, and have a good bit of data with different bullets in both the test medium and animal tissue and I can tell you this with 100% confidence;

1. What is successful in the test medium, will be successful and perform the same in animal tissue.

2. If an expanding bullet fails in the test medium, it is very likely it will fail in the field also if velocity and other factors are equal.

3. If an expanding bullet is successful in the test medium, it will also be successful in the field with all factors being equal.

Now you question about the round nose solids if I may. In years past correlating data between animal tissue and the test medium I have found that on average (rule of thumb) an expanding bullet will penetrate animal tissue 75-80% or more deeper than the test medium. Lot's of factors come into play in the field as you know that can move that average up or down slightly, but mostly up from 75%, but that is average. In correlating solids the same way I only come up with about 30-35% more penetration in animal tissue than the test medium. There are many dynamics that have a different effect on the solids as opposed to the expanding. What we see with expanding bullet is this, from animal tissue to the test medium it is very much the same, the way a bullet behaves. Solids, not so.

Solids are an entity unto their own! We are beginning to unravel some of this mystery only now. In the test medium that Mike and I use, wet print, various round nose bullets from 416 caliber to 510 caliber that I have tested will 100% of the time veer off course, and most of the time that is between 20-30 inches of penetration before doing so. It's a given, they do it every single time because they cannot remain stable during penetration. The test medium is denser, and more solid than say shooting through a buffalo broadside. It's a continuous mix of wet print and solid. During terminal penetration it is the NOSE that takes over and does the DRIVING the millisecond that bullet enters and starts to penetrate. I have shot a lot of buffalo, a few elephants, and lot's of other critters with round nose solids of different designs and NO THEY DO NOT VEER OFF COURSE ALL THE TIME OR EVEN CONSISTENTLY as far as I can tell, but I promise that there is POTENTIAL for them to do so in the field on animal tissue. I have seen various round nose designs veer off course and exit an animal far from where it should have, and tracked that a few times. It can happen, it does not do so 100% of the time. In the field there are 1000s of factors that can be introduced into the equation that is totally out of our control, wild things happen in the field, we have all seen it! With a proper flat nose solid, with a proper meplat size of 60% meplat of caliber or better one can increase dramatically the opportunity to have dead straight line penetration.

Back to another point, remember the correlation between animal tissue and this test medium? With solids about 30-35% more penetration in animal tissue than the test medium. We know most round nose solids veer off course from 20-30 inches. Let's say we are shooting a 500 Gr Woodleigh 458 RN solid or FMJ. In my tests with these they will penetrate 30-31 inches consistently before veering off course. In animal tissue add 35% and that takes you to roughly 46-48 inches of total straight penetration. So it does not surprise me at all that one can still kill buffalo with a round nose solid and it still penetrate straight through broadside eh? Elephants the same! But do not forget, the potential is there for it to fail at a given point. So if one is stuck on their tried and true RN FMJs then that's ok, it has, and it will continue to accomplish the mission. It is my strong belief that a proper FN solid will do a better job of that and will instill confidence to the user that some potential to fail has been eliminated. Not anything is 100% in the field, any bullet can fail that is no doubt, simply because of the 1000s of factors that can be introduced beyond our control, but I say it's always good to go with the best you can go with and defeat as many of the factors you can control as possible!

Michael

Michael
Good post.

Not sure I totally agree that the results of test medium correlate 100% with animals but in the majority of cases, yes they do and you are right, they do show up failures.

Yes, the potential is there for a lot of things to happen and i have seen bullets do some things not thought possible !!!

BTW - I used to do some work for Woodleigh so did a bit of testing for them - the 350 gn 375's, 9.3 PP bullets, 600gn .510's and 505's
so pumped and dumped a lot of Buffalo during the process.


The one Solid I can really remember was a Big Cow buffalo (she was close to a ton so big for a cow) which decided a good hit with a 505 Gibbs was not enough so decided to piss off PDQ.

I fired a solid at he hip and can still remember the solid existing and whizzing off into the distance. Probably went 5 - 6 feet of penetration in a straight line including taking out 1 hip and 1 bone in the front leg.


Anyway, it's all good healthy discussion

Extreme

I don't think they are pure copper either. Neither are my .500s that I have David make. They are very hard. Look like copper, but must be an alloy of sorts. I have shot some of mine through bone and they don't have a scratch on them anywhere. I swear some of these I recover one day I am going to shoot them twice and test them! Just wait until I put some North Forks up against the "Concrete Block T'Rex" You will see damage to them then!

I had some bronze ones done when I was first working on the .500s. Did just fine. I need to learn more about metals used for the bullets.

Again for this crowd over here, the point is to test bullets against bullets in consistent medium. It is also the point to put STRESS on said bullets and not give them a free ride. When one finds the point in which one bullet fails, while in the exact same test one is successful...............what conclusions can be drawn from that??? Eliminating controlled potential failures. I say no more.

I am getting a little old and fat to be rolling around in the dirt these days! But if Grey Goose is involved.............

LOL

Ya'll have fun!
Michael

500N
Thanks! I appreciate it, hope I helped explain some things about what we are doing.

Yes, I do recall in some conversation elsewhere that you did shoot quite a few buffalo for Woodleigh and such. I have to tell you, of course you know I did a little shoot with Paul Truccolo last fall, and that was one of the most fun hunts or shoots I have ever done in my life! Of course Paul is a pleasure to be around too, and we hit it off rather well! I am helping him put together a couple of work rifles this summer, a Win M70 458 Lott and a WIn M70 500 MDM. He is all excited about that, and so am I. I can't wait to get back down there and he and I do some more shooting. I told him the next time I come instead of only putting 20 on quota I was putting 50 on quota! Too much fun! Damn good way to test bullets too!

Have you tried any of the new mono Woodleighs? Con sent a few samples of the 458 400 gr bullets and they performed fantastic in the test medium, and I understand that Midway will be putting them online as soon as they get them in. Ugly ass bullet, but very effective I believe!

Good hearing from you again!

Michael

Michael

Yes, I know Paul, a top bloke and a top hunter / PH. When he started, I Always thought he'd run a good show and a tight ship.

I did read your post of that trip - I think I even commented on it.

Buffalo are superb test medium, I agree.

Re the new bullets, I carried a 375H&H one around for 2 weeks but none of the Buff I shot would stand to allow an end to end shot (as we knew they would exit if we didn't.

However this year Geoff wanted some recoveries out of a DR (as opposed to a Bolt gun) so they made some up for my WR 500/465 and I shot those into Buff. I was Very impressed with the performance - both in terms of penetration and killing power / effect. Having pumped a fair few other SN and solids into Buff, I could compare easily. (I don't shoot Mono's out of my double's but I trust Geoff to know what he is doing and he is pedantic about quality so was happy to do it with his OK.)

I have enough Woodleigh SN and Solids to last me a life time so doubt I'd use many but they are great for what they are designed for.


You will have a good time with Paul - the "wet"
still seems to be on even though it's April !!!

quote:

Originally posted by Extremist458:
So here I will appologize for offending you, as I ment no offense, and I stated such. All tests are set-up so too speak, but I did not question the test or it's results. But at least I did not call you a "f***ing asshole".
I stated that the bullets do not look like they were the same ones used in the test, that is it, and they still do not. No, I don't think you staged the results, but the bullets look a little odd to me. I know of your testing, thank you for it, and I have seen these pictures on page 21 of TBP, and no bullet is shown there. I just notice how perfect the bullets look. I still maintain that I could be mistaken, so I'll just leave it alone. Sorry for your trouble Mike.

Like I said I wennt a little overboard with the FA comment.

BTW the test on Page 21 you refer to is only Woodleighs, the first North Fork test in the TBF thread is on page 25. It has the same pictures as this thread. you can also notice the Woody on page 25 is bright and shiny.

Is this bullet stressed enough?



These are some of the hornady DGS

Tonight I will post a proper response to some of the questions although Michael458 does a better job than I do. Here is a spreadsheet of one test that I conducted.

The only thing I do differently now is document the velocity of each bullet as opposed to an average of a group. Velocity +-100 FPS makes very little difference in penetration but I am trying to be more detailed in reporting.

Dutch44 and 500N,

I will never discount what people do in the field. Woodleighs/Kynochs have been used to kill more DG in Africa than probably all other bullets together.

However even Taylor questioned the penetration of the 470. He did not like the bullet design. Having killed only one elephant it is hard to make any solid (no pun intended) assumptions from that limited experience. I still believe I shot it where I should have (even bought Will's book to confirm it) and did not kill it first shot. Did the bullet veer or did I just miss the brain? Never will know for sure.

As far test medium, several people felt my original medium (12" wet newspaper, 2 by 6, 60" of wet newspaper) was too tough. I tried newspaper, plywood, hardy board, water, newspaper test. Some people say it was too easy. BTW that is the only test I fired just one of each bullet. I also tried newspaper, 2 by 6, 12 pieces of plywood with newspaper between each piece.

The two consistent things were the North Fork were pretty much perfect. The Woodleighs veered at around 20".

So I feel the North Fork is a better mousetrap. I post results and people can draw conclusions from there. I also feel it is easier on my double than the Woody's.

Michael458, RIP, and I (others also) have set up different tests in different parts of the country, with different rifles and calibers and have ended up with similar results. I am glad to see Woodleigh come out with a new bullet design. It looks strange and non traditional but it seems to work.

Even we do not agree on everything though, I cannot get Michael458 to wear short shorts when he is in Africa.

500N

As for Paul, just don't get any better! Paul and I hit it off wonderfully, and the great thing about Paul is that he is truly "genuine", no hidden agenda, you are not just his friend while you are hunting, you are for thereafter friends. It's refreshing and fun to hunt with Paul!

I had some great correspondence with Geoff a few years ago concerning making some bullets for my .500s (not .510) and he is great and was very open to it. In fact he did make some but somewhere in the mix there was some confusion and they actually were .510 and not .500. I am a huge Woodleigh fan, and have shelves full of Woodleigh bullets in all my big bore calibers, and all the mediums too! I do have some favorites in certain calibers.

Now the new Woodleigh Mono solid is about the "ugliest" bullet I have ever seen! But ugly don't count, performance does. As stated I only got to test the 400 gr 458 version, and it was incredible the performance it gave for it's weight. I am very sure you were able to observe the reaction of the buffalo when you used them, and I am sure of the trauma and hitting effect you saw. I have seen it with other FN solids too. And having shot several with round nose solids there is no doubt there is a difference between the two, we both have seen it. Paul has been using factory 458 Lott Hornady DGS and he has made the comment of how much harder they hit than any of the RN he has used too. The new Woodleighs are a very impressive design, I think they will do very well, and I can't wait to get my hands on some more of them.

Wow, what a tremendous change in the last 5 yrs in Solid tech! I believe strongly in good solids, and have used them in nearly every hunting scenario from plains game, to bears, and of course the heavies! For me I have taken the old strategy of an expanding up front and solids behind to nearly all applications of shooting or hunting that I do. I did this on a test shoot in RSA in 2006 because I was using bullets on game that I had questions about, so I backed everything with solids, wildebeast, zebra, kudu, everything. I am very rarely a fellow that shoots one time and watches, I continue to shoot until there is not a shot, or out of ammo, or the problem is solved. So I figured a good solid up the rear of a kudu after the first shot was just good insurance and would do the job. Or even a bear for that matter. I probably use more solids than most folks do, and for all hunting scenarios. I am amazed, but not surprised, at the multitude of really good solid bullets that have come out in the last 5 yrs, and very pleased with the fact.

Thanks
Michael

Mike work has followed up some of my work, and he too has tried a few different mixes to not only put added stress on bullets, but in several different mixes to see what works, and what does not work. It is very true that in several different types of medium, the results across the country are the same, whether it is in my tests, Mikes tests, RIP's, and many more, the end result of the behavior of certain bullets remains the same, regardless. Mike has also been able to point out some wonderful points with his tests in his 470. Over on the Terminal Performance thread we have discovered, or maybe "rediscovered" how important twist is to some bullets with marginal meplats. Our conclusions to this point in time are that faster twists are better for terminal penetration. The more marginal the meplat size, the more important the twist rate becomes. In our opinion Mikes 1:18 twist rate in his 470 double is not optimum, where anything from 1:14 to 1:10 would be much improved. What Mike has succeeded in telling us is that the North Fork solid with it's optimum meplat size can overcome what might be considered a less than optimum twist rate! An extremely important point to consider, if one desires to optimize all aspects under ones control. I am quite sure that the new Woodleigh solids, the Barnes Banded, the GS Customs, and some others will also perform the same as long as that meplat size is large enough. Now not being a double rifle guy there are other considerations you guys must take into account, that I am ignorant about. But if I was a double sort of chap, I would very seriously look into the North Forks, as I understand they are double friendly. I would have nothing else in mine, and that based on my experience, and Mikes test work! His work is "Solid", pun intended!

Now like he said, we don't always agree, and there are a few things that I do refuse to do these days, one of them is wearing short shorts in Africa while shooting! I think if you guys ever saw these skinny ass, lily white, chicken legs of mine, you would surely understand why!

Now I think I must take my leave from here, as I am nothing but "bolt trash" and love short barreled bolt guns! Mike and I have had several discussions about taking some of his fine doubles and wacking a few inches off so that they are a little more handy and take some weight off in the process! Hmmmm, well I didn't know that was a "no no", so before I say something that might cause this group to start a "lynch mob" I best get back over to something I am less ignorant about!
Thank You!

Michael

Mike, nice job. Some folks of course won't let facts interfere with their opinions. Now, something that may not have been pointed out: there is a difference between "animal tissue" and your test ie. animal tissue is NOT consistent especially if the bullet hits bone. Your test was designed to provide consistency of media. Having said that, your test also demonstrated that the Woodleigh performed in the test media exactly the same as it performed (in one instance) in a live animal. This should provide some food for thought, in some people anyway.
You mentioned FN solids in one of your posts above. Have you tested these at all? I have some in 416 for my Rigby and 500/416. I find them superbly accurate but no "live/dead" tests yet!
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter:
Mike, nice job. Some folks of course won't let facts interfere with their opinions. Now, something that may not have been pointed out: there is a difference between "animal tissue" and your test ie. animal tissue is NOT consistent especially if the bullet hits bone. Your test was designed to provide consistency of media. Having said that, your test also demonstrated that the Woodleigh performed in the test media exactly the same as it performed (in one instance) in a live animal. This should provide some food for thought, in some people anyway.
You mentioned FN solids in one of your posts above. Have you tested these at all? I have some in 416 for my Rigby and 500/416. I find them superbly accurate but no "live/dead" tests yet!
Peter.

Peter

Disagree with you here, Mike doesn't know if it veered or not - having cut up a lot of animals to extract bullets, to determine what is what you need to follow the path from entry to stopping / recovery point. I have often wondered how a bullet ended up where it was only to find it was me who put it there because of where I hit the animal and the angle of entry.

I haven't had any issues with bullets veering but then again, I haven't shot an elephant either and an elephants skull is something else.

Just my HO.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike70560:

quote:

by extremist458
This looks set-up to me, especially since I have shot NorthForks before, more then once, and have not found one to look like the pictures above.

So you say I set up my test and I am not suppose to be offended. Maybe I should have not typed that last sentence, it is a out of character for me, but I am pissed. It does not bother me when people want to argue or discuss results but to say I staged them is not right.

I have been on the TBP thread in Big Bores since it started and this is only a snapshot of the testing I did.

Why so rude and offensive?, because even in the above post you still insinuate I lied about test results.

Give it up Mike there is no way of talking to this guy! He is a know-it-all,is here only to make trouble!

quote:

Extremist458

So here I will appologize for offending you, as I ment no offense, and I stated such. All tests are set-up so too speak, but I did not question the test or it's results. But at least I did not call you a "f***ing asshole".

No you didn't call him a "F***ing asshole, but you did, in fact, call him a LIAR, so what did you expect to get back, a "thank you"?
I can assure you it wouldn't be a good idea to do so face to face with Mike! You're post boils down to "YOU ARE A LIAR, BUT I MEAN NO OFFENSE!", end of post!

Extreme if you do as much testing as you say, and I'm quite sure you do, you should know that nobody can predict how a partriuclar bullet will react to things it hits. I've had solids brad badly on a rib in a cape buffalo, and the same make drive right through a tuff upper leg bone of larger buffalo and show no damage at all, and have been re-loaded and shot again. You know as well the rest of the folks here that the next bullet through that test medium may act intirely different. So to come on so strong, calling the tester a liar about his results is, to shy away from stronger language,in poor taste, to say the least.

you can white-wash your post anyway you want, but you did call the man a liar, and you know it!

To All,

Just to clear up the question of what material is used in North Fork solids (both flat and cup points), they are created from pure copper that is a full hard condition and not guilded metal (copper alloy). After many years of testing, we have come to the conclusion that pure copper is the best material bar none over all the copper alloys (gold is better yet but there are obvious reasons why this hasn't caught on, would definately bring more women to our sport and reloading though). The reason copper alloys are primarily for machinablility (punch presses, impact extrusions, and cold heading). Pure copper is a real bear on tools and equipment. We have to hold our breath everytime we see someone explaining the advantages of copper alloys - there are none as far as terminal performance is concerned, infact it is a detriment, the only advantage is for the manufacturer. Both NF and GS use pure copper in all of their respective bullet designs. The only difference is ours are in a full hard state and theirs are 1/2 hard. Just a different set of beliefs on how a solid should perform, NF - no deformation, GS - deformation. Would I trust my life with either bullet - YES, but I believe in penetration over all else. No one has ever lost an animal due to "over penetration", plus I am a firm believer in two holes are better than one, energy arguements aside.

On the testing side of things, Mike's tests are very indicative of what we also see. Wet newspaper and boards are no more a difficult test than ballistic gelatin (anyone can make a bad bullet look good in that goo). But it should be noted that in such a simple test, if one sees any failures to travel staight and true, then an eyebrow should be raised. We have seen the same results with Woodleighs and Rhinos, but I will not argue the fact that they have killed many animals, that they are good bullets made by skilled people, and have worked perfectly at times. They are just 100 year old designs with better designs now available that have 100% reliability (a Model T vs. a Corvette - both will get you there).

Regards,
North Fork Technologies
www.northforkbullets.com

First, I am a fan of North Fork bullets and have used them extensively on elephants and cape buffalo, but that said, it is just pure BS to imply that Woodleighs, or other bullets, will veer off course in game because they veer off course in wet newsprint.

I am an invererate bullet digger and follow wound tracks frequently now and on every occasion after shooting my fist dozen or so elephants. Woodleighs reliably track straight in game! In fact, THE ONLY BULLET THE WOUND CHANNEL OF WHICH I HAVE TRACKED WHICH VEERED WAS A NF FLAT NOSE SOLID!!!

And even that ONE veering bullet moved off course only four or five inches over four feet of penetration. That NF had a divot in its nose the result of passing through bone as it brained the elephant from the front.

In fact, for punching through heavy bone, a well constructed steel jacketed solid like the Woodleigh is much prefered over a bullet contructed like the NF, because the steel jacketed solid will not deform as readily as a mono bullet while it is traveling nose on.

Round noses do have a tendency to tumble after loosing most all of their in game velocity, of that I am sure, a trait absent from truncated flat nose solids like the NF, but hemisperical nosed bullets do not have a tendency to veer off course while penetrating game!!!

From my in game experiments and measure ments, trucated cone flat nose bullets like the North Fork can be relied on to out peneterate round nose solids by between 20% and 40% depending on what the bullets must pass through, with lesser difference reflected on broadside lung shots and the greater when more muscle is encountered, and also on frontal brain shots.

I have had one NF deflect off of an elephants zygomatic arch, which is why I use a Woodleigh for the firsrt shot for punching through bone and a NF for any subsequent shots (GSC would be a fine selection as well, I prefer NF's because they are harder.)

JPK

Mike:
Perfect reason to swap that tired .470 for a nice new 450 3 1/4.


Dutch

North Fork,

Thanks for joining us and adding the technical side of NF projectiles.

I'll agree to disagree with you re the veeering off course as I just haven't seen it in animals I've shot. Not to say it sometimes doesn't happen - after all, JPK's post shows that !!!

Anyway, all good discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by JPK:
First, I am a fan of North Fork bullets and have used them extensively on elephants and cape buffalo, but that said, it is just pure BS to imply that Woodleighs, or other bullets, will veer off course in game because they veer off course in wet newsprint.

I am an invererate bullet digger and follow wound tracks frequently now and on every occasion after shooting my fist dozen or so elephants. Woodleighs reliably track straight in game! In fact, THE ONLY BULLET THE WOUND CHANNEL OF WHICH I HAVE TRACKED WHICH VEERED WAS A NF FLAT NOSE SOLID!!!

And even that ONE veering bullet moved off course only four or five inches over four feet of penetration. That NF had a divot in its nose the result of passing through bone as it brained the elephant from the front.

In fact, for punching through heavy bone, a well constructed steel jacketed solid like the Woodleigh is much prefered over a bullet contructed like the NF, because the steel jacketed solid will not deform as readily as a mono bullet while it is traveling nose on.

Round noses do have a tendency to tumble after loosing most all of their in game velocity, of that I am sure, a trait absent from truncated flat nose solids like the NF, but hemisperical nosed bullets do not have a tendency to veer off course while penetrating game!!!

From my in game experiments and measure ments, trucated cone flat nose bullets like the North Fork can be relied on to out peneterate round nose solids by between 20% and 40% depending on what the bullets must pass through, with lesser difference reflected on broadside lung shots and the greater when more muscle is encountered, and also on frontal brain shots.

I have had one NF deflect off of an elephants zygomatic arch, which is why I use a Woodleigh for the firsrt shot for punching through bone and a NF for any subsequent shots (GSC would be a fine selection as well, I prefer NF's because they are harder.)

JPK

JPK,

I respectfully disagree with you. My personal experience last month was the Woodleigh solid deformed and veered off course. When I get a minute, I will post the photos of a bent 500 grain.

It was on a 15 yard frontal on a bull ele. The deformed round was later recovered behind his left jaw muscle. It veered approx 45 degrees off course.

Personally, I would never hunt with Woodie solids again.

Just my 2 Zim penny's worth.

I have a collection of recovered bullets. Many are Woodleighs and some are bent. I believe they bend when they tumble, and that they tumble when they have lost the great proportion of their velocity.

As far as tracked wound channnels and recovered bullets, I have done maybe fifty. Only the North Fork veered. I don't believe that the one veering NF indicates that NF's tend to veer in game, just as I don't think your one veered Woodleigh indicated that Woodleigh hemishperical nose solids tend to veer in game.

Also, note my writing "hemisherical nose" above and in my original post. If your bullet didn' have a hemisherical nose but a nose like the traditional Kynoch 470 profile, it will have some tendency to veer. Woodleigh's for 470's have that nose. If you have read Taylor, you will find that he preffered other NE cartridges for eles just because of the 470 solid bullet shape.

JPK,

One would expect the bullet to stay on path until it hit something vital, this instance the brain.

Mine did not.

I suspect it is the Hemispheric variety, as I have not heard of any choice offered by Woodleigh in the .470. It's possible that shape is likely to bend and veer off course. I my limited experiences it's at 100% failure.

If we were not fortunate enough to have that bull do a semi circle around us, we might have lost it for good. That's too big a chance to take for me. Next time, something other than the Woodies will be in the tubes.

I am glad you have had better luck, but are you not concerned with all of those bent projectiles?

One thing you have to remember is that Woodleigh's were created to replicate the Old Eley / Kynoch bullets when ammo was not available so that the older English Double Rifle's could be loaded and shot for.

Geoff copied the designs from the original Kynoch drawings.

After all, at that stage, no good producing bullets if the damn things would regulate in a DR. Now with modern technology different things have been tried
and found to work in some guns.

JDB,

470 Woodlieghs, like the original Kynochs, are NOT hemisherical.

Regarding the bent or, in fewer instances, spilt Woodleighs, no I am not concerned. And that is because through chasing wound channels I have re-affirmed that round nose, hemisherical steel jacketed solids travel nose on for the great portion of their penetration. Some, maybe even most, AFTER they have lost most of their velocity, will tumble. When they tumble is when they bend, flatten at the tail, split or otherwise deform. And by then they have done their jobs.

BTW, the proportion of bent, tail flattened, split or otherwise deformed Woodleighs is maybe 30%. The proportion of bent or, especially, divoted North Forks is near the same. It would be greater than NF's for GSC's because they are softer.

No bullet is perfect. They all have their plusses and minusses. The Woodleigh's pluses, (despite your single failure - and BTW, what killed the elephant, a second Woodleigh?) are reliable straight penetration that is adequate and resistance to nose deformation, even when solid bone is encountered; their minusses are a tendency to tumble, albeit when their volicity is much reduced and their job done, and thier construction, which makes it possible for them to flatten at the tail and to split at the tail when they do tumbl. NF's plusses are reliable straight line penetration that is phenominal and their resistance to tumbling, which assists in their great penetration (as opposed to Woodleighs, which once they begin to tumble, if they do tumble, do not penetrate far their minusses are their tendency to deform at the nose, especially when heavy bone is encountered.

This situation is about perfect from my perspective. The first shot is going to be a brain shot. Bone will be encountered, heavy maybe on a frontal, probably, if you are close, on a side. Penetration requirements are known, and within the Woodleigh's reliable range. So use a Woodleigh. If a second shot, or third... is going to be needed, chances are that you will wnat and maybe need all of the penetration you can get, and there NF's shine. Any bone you encounter or shoot for only needs to be broken, not penetrated, ball joint, hip, shoulder leg bones, so deformation won't hurt you. But you NEED penetration for a successful lethal raking shot. So use a North Fork.

JPK

quote:

Originally posted by Extremist458:
Don't get so bent out of shape man, just voicing my opinion. Didn't even imply the bullets wouldn't do as you show. They are good bullets and would perform very much like you say, but I just have a hard time believing those bullets look so good after that test. Why so rude and defensive?

An Opinion not based on a factual base is a meaningless opinion

quote:

First, I am a fan of North Fork bullets and have used them extensively on elephants and cape buffalo, but that said, it is just pure BS to imply that Woodleighs, or other bullets, will veer off course in game because they veer off course in wet newsprint.

I have seen a Woodligh 500 grain round nose solid veer badly of course in an animal. Does this happen every time, no. But it happens and that is the problem with round nose bullet IMHO and experience

Not only do Flat point solids track straighter, they also leave larger diameter wound channels

How anyone can argue this is beyound me...

quote:

Originally posted by jwp475:

I have seen a Woodligh 500 grain round nose solid veer badly of course in an animal. Does this happen every time, no. But it happens and that is the problem with round nose bullet IMHO and experience

Not only do Flat point solids track straighter, they also leave larger diameter wound channels

How anyone can argue this is beyound me...

So does the first part apply to ALL round noses and all of the time ?
ie Hornady RN ? No, I doubt it.


Flat nose leave larger diameter wound channels ? Start of with a .465 or 470 bullet, expanded with 4 petals to .7 or .8 of an inch, maybe more, ragged petals, the channels they produce in animals are big, kept open and bleeders to boot.