quote:

Originally posted by 505G:

quote:

I have had flat nose solids deform and veer on brain shots

Seems to be discounted by most !!!

Hey Michael458 ????

Nigel

Currently there is no solid bullet on the market or has ever been made from any shootable
or repeatable shootable material that will not deform......

Not discounted at all..... This comes as one of the 8 Factors of Terminal Penetration of Solids under
Construction/Material. And has been tested here in the past.........

Deformation is down the list of 8 with other factors ahead of it in importance............

Michael

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
I don't have the experience of many or most of you but the Woodleighs seem to work for me. Recovered bullets (grizz, cape buff, water buff, giraffe, hippo) retain their weight good and hold their shape--both solids and softs. And, I do like the way they look.
Call me numbnuts, I guess.
Cal

Cal, obviously beauty is truly in the eyes of the beholder..... HEH..... a .620 Woodleigh FMJ just don't seem be a thing of beauty... LOL.......... And a .620 most certainly has a far different nose profile than any of the other Woodleighs, and it has tested best of Woodleigh FMJ larger bores here, so it comes as no surprise at all that you have been successful with it on buffalo and hippo........

http://forums.accuratereloadin...=452101374&f=1411043

http://forums.accuratereloadin...=643101959&f=1411043

http://forums.accuratereloadin...5461070481&f=1411043

Michael:
The .600 Woodleigh solids do have a flat nose profile. I look at my original .600 ammo from the vintage years and some is rather pointed like the .577s and some are almost flat. It is interesting to see how many variations of bullets that were made for such a small number of rifles. If I knew how to post pics here I would do so.
Cheers, mate.
Cal

Todd: I wasn't foolin ya. I don't have a dog in this fight cause I don't hunt with solids but it's fun to work up loads for them.

Here's my take on this. I think the flat nose solids are better but wouldn't hesitate to hunt with a Woodleigh. In some calibers, like my 9,3X74R or .375 Flanged, the North Fork cup points would be great bullets. In my 500/.416, I have only had a chance to experiment with the Wooleigh solids. That's why I was asking the guys with real experience.

quote:

Michael:
The .600 Woodleigh solids do have a flat nose profile. I look at my original .600 ammo from the vintage years and some is rather pointed like the .577s and some are almost flat. It is interesting to see how many variations of bullets that were made for such a small number of rifles. If I knew how to post pics here I would do so.
Cheers, mate.
Cal

Cal...
This is the only .620 Woodleigh I have seen or worked with.... Corbin had these some years ago when we were messing around with his 600 OK........ And as you say, nose is not typical RN design... 41 inches is a long way and more than enough to do a lot....... So like I said, not really surprised by your success if this was the bullet you were using as well........

Thanks, Michael.
Corbin who??
Cal

I am probably pretty representative of the "silent majority" of DR hunters that are not really load or tech. savvy and don't really ever care to be.

I define my hunting with DR's like Mr. Cal Pappas
does. A traditional pursuit with traditional weapons using as much "tradition" as is possible.

First, a DR is and will always be primarily a short range weapon. (Todd Williams not included )

I have never shot a DR at an animal at beyond 40 yards. That said, the bullet design of a solid projectile is really of very little concern to me. Maybe it should be, I dunno. I really don't care.

Solids are for jumbo's, softs are for buffalo (my opinion) A 570gr Woodleigh soft WILL NOT shoot through a buffalo side to side, rendering it mostly safe for situations of other buffalo around.

I think all this is cool for discussion but this much technology on a bullet designed to shoot 40-50 yards is like discussing the cornering ability of a top fuel dragster.

I don't get it. Not a naysayer, just don't understand the need for this.

DR's are traditional weapons, If I could use cordite I would. I can use Woodleigh's...so I do.

Steve

I have killed elephant, hippo and Cape buffalo with Woodleigh solids.

They worked just fine.

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Thanks, Michael.
Corbin who??
Cal

Secret F****** Agent is all I have been directed to say...............



Nganga......... This discussion has nothing to do with being able to shoot 40 yds...... For sure, you don't understand what
is being discussed.... At some point if you wish to learn about Terminal Performance of Solids I would be happy to assist.

Yes, MR... Everyone knows that some folks have used Woodleigh Solids and they worked just fine..... I have also killed elephant, buffalo and hippo with RN solids and those animals are dead, this is not the point.........

Michael

Michael is one of those special hunters where dead isn't good enough

I wonder how some here reached the conclusion FN monometal was better than steel jacketed RN even before they started being tested on game.They seemed to know the experimental outcome before the actual experiment!

Shootaway

Flat nosed and Cup nosed bullets work, they have been used before Michael did his testing.

On animals and humans !!!
(not everyone adheres to the Geneva convention !!!)

I have used the cup nosed Woodleigh Hydros,
they do work well. Penetrate more than a RN Woodleigh - as expected but never done a direct comparison on the same animal with a Hydro and a RN Solid but would expect similar, probably a bit more penetration from the Hydro.

The other benefit is you effectively have a Soft RN performance and a Solid in the one bullet. No need to have Solids at the bottom of the Mag like I sometimes do with a bolt action
or one soft and one solid in a double.

Anyway, good jousting with Michael !!!

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Thanks, Michael.
Corbin who??
Cal

Secret F****** Agent is all I have been directed to say...............



Nganga......... This discussion has nothing to do with being able to shoot 40 yds...... For sure, you don't understand what
is being discussed.... At some point if you wish to learn about Terminal Performance of Solids I would be happy to assist.

Yes, MR... Everyone knows that some folks have used Woodleigh Solids and they worked just fine..... I have also killed elephant, buffalo and hippo with RN solids and those animals are dead, this is not the point.........

Michael

Pretty condescending response. So, your bullets are designed for exactly what, if not short range DG hunting?

One thing I have seen as I read most of these threads is; if anyone disagrees with you or simply asks questions not of your approval you tend to talk down to them.

I approach this as an International Sport hunter not a technical guru. My questions are more based on "if it aint broke don't fix it" than anything.

So, "For sure you don't understand what is being discussed" you're right. I don't.

again, as I said before, not a naysayer in the technology.

Nganga

Interesting observation.

You did forget to add "if the words Woodleigh" are mentioned in the post. That sets off Michael like a NASA rocket !!!

I still do not believe, even though Michael pushes it often that as quoted from Todd's post "the difference in barrel strains where the CEB is the easiest on barrels with the Woodleigh FMJ being the hardest!!"

or, is the difference that much AND does it make any bloody difference at all to the gun.
My thoughts are no, because hundreds of thousands of them have been shot and if it was
causing problems, you would know.

So this continuing mention of it to me is superfluous.



BTW, for Michael and I get on fine, we just disagree on a few things so any barbs he throws at me are fine by me. I have a skin thick enough that not even his CEB bullets would penetrate

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:
Nganga

Interesting observation.

You did forget to add "if the words Woodleigh" are mentioned in the post. That sets off Michael like a NASA rocket !!!

I still do not believe, even though Michael pushes it often that as quoted from Todd's post "the difference in barrel strains where the CEB is the easiest on barrels with the Woodleigh FMJ being the hardest!!"

or, is the difference that much AND does it make any bloody difference at all to the gun.
My thoughts are no, because hundreds of thousands of them have been shot and if it was
causing problems, you would know.

So this continuing mention of it to me is superfluous.



BTW, for Michael and I get on fine, we just disagree on a few things so any barbs he throws at me are fine by me. I have a skin thick enough that not even his CEB bullets would penetrate

Hi 505G,

I really don't care about Michael's tone. It just seems like his attitude is one of a closed discussion. One that does not allow a contrary question. "run along little boy" this is the adult table.

When I was a flight instructor, I promised myself I would try to NEVER lose my temper with a student no matter how boneheaded a stunt he was trying to pull. It worked for the first one thousand itereations of the same mistake over the years. I finally had enough one day and from then on, that particular mistake became my boiling point. I can see how Michael, after posting THOUSANDS of graphs and data (not opinions or guesses) regarding barrel strain and penetration and some still discount it loses his temper somewhat...

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
When I was a flight instructor, I promised myself I would try to NEVER lose my temper with a student no matter how boneheaded a stunt he was trying to pull. It worked for the first one thousand itereations of the same mistake over the years. I finally had enough one day and from then on, that particular mistake became my boiling point. I can see how Michael, after posting THOUSANDS of graphs and data (not opinions or guesses) regarding barrel strain and penetration and some still discount it loses his temper somewhat...

Hi Jorge,
I coach kids in a youth cycling league. I too get frustrated in some things that are repeated every time we are working on a skill or strength drill.

I don't shout, condescend or belittle, I build, encourage and explain.

But for this, it doesn't really matter to me, I had a question and expressed my opinion. I just break the action, shove a couple cartridges in slam it shut and go to work. It's really no more complicated than that to me.

When I go to Africa for DG I dont choose my bullet because a certain individual posted charts on the net.I chose a bullet because I have tested it myself making the best of the resources available.
I also listen to people who have plenty of DG experience but only the ones who come across as trustworthy to me.I dont listen to the ones for example who have suppossodly never made a mistake in their lives(gun and hunting related) and everything is always perfect.

Noted, I was just commenting that I could see how Michael gets frustrated. As for me I take a bit more care before I shove cartridges into a rifle I'm about to mix it up with something that can turn the tables on me. Maybe that's why I don't use Remington 700s or Sierra bullets... And I'll add: If you are ever on the same side of the discussion as shiatway, I'd seriously reconsider....

quote:

Originally posted by jorge:
Noted, I was just commenting that I could see how Michael gets frustrated. As for me I take a bit more care before I shove cartridges into a rifle I'm about to mix it up with something that can turn the tables on me. Maybe that's why I don't use Remington 700s or Sierra bullets... And I'll add: If you are ever on the same side of the discussion as shiatway, I'd seriously reconsider....

Jorge,
I will put my DG experience...in Africa... up against any member of this forum, period. I purchase 500NE from Superior, loaded with Woodleighs, either soft or solid.

If I were to reload, I would NOT BE THAT CONFIDENT in my own work.

As I stated, open the little lever thingy, open action, load, slam shut...go to work.

Like Michael said, I obviously don't get it. So nothing to be learned here.

Fellas:
I guess, with tempers rising, it is not the time or place to mention that I have loaded lead bullets in my doubles for plains and big game.
LOL gents.
Cal
PS. Such a reply to my question of, "Corbin who?" would suggest to me Corbin S., a friend of many years ago when I was putting my .600 book together.

Nganga, no worries my friend, I am certain your DG experience VASTLY exceeds mine! I must confess I do place a lot of credibility in all the hard work Michael and others have done, plus the many positive field reports with these bullets from the field. I'll close by saying that I also agree with what Cal said regarding the traditional aspect of all this that we do and incidentally my double LOVES the Woodleighs both softs and solids as well as the CEB NON-CON, the solids not so much so I use both.

nganga... Steve.....

quote:

I have never shot a DR at an animal at beyond 40 yards. That said, the bullet design of a solid projectile is really of very little concern to me. Maybe it should be, I dunno. I really don't care

I think all this is cool for discussion but this much technology on a bullet designed to shoot 40-50 yards is like discussing the cornering ability of a top fuel dragster.

I don't get it. Not a naysayer, just don't understand the need for this. .

Your statement above never mentions "Terminal Performance"... ???? Therefore, it leads one to consider that all the bullet design is for shooting at 40 yards? Accuracy? What? Who Knows?.... Your own words, you don't understand, and even more important "Really Don't Care"..... So what is the point of your post at all to begin with?

So you understand, the design work is for "Terminal Performance"... You know, the part that happens when bullet hits the meat...........

quote:

Pretty condescending response. So, your bullets are designed for exactly what, if not short range DG hunting?

Condescending? Maybe, probably so, since you said you really don't care, then why should I? I have you placed in the same category as one who hunts and buys his ammo from the Wal Mart. When asked what bullet he is shooting, he don't even know.

quote:

One thing I have seen as I read most of these threads is; if anyone disagrees with you or simply asks questions not of your approval you tend to talk down to them.

And your question was?

quote:

I approach this as an International Sport hunter not a technical guru. My questions are more based on "if it aint broke don't fix it" than anything.

Mr. International Sport Hunter...... FYI...........

quote:

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.

quote:

Just thought I would share some anecdotal evidence. Last month, I shot a bull elephant on the top wrinkle with a .470 using Woodleigh solids, 2140 fps. At the shot, the ele starting shaking his head, then moved off.
When we skinned that ele out, I saw a triagular formation of bone in his forehead. My first shot entered the hard bone which forms the top point of this triangle. Just an inch below is a soft opening, a channel looking to lead strait to the brain.

But we later saw the wound channel. The bullet was recovered behind the left ear, just under the skin. It veered approx 45 degrees off true course.

I do have a bone to pick with Woody. I know they will never be in my tubes on safari, ever. There is just too much at stake, including my own life, to trust these bullets again.

quote:

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 beyond me...

quote:

loaded with the old Hornady RN solid. He was trying to shoot for the heart through the trunk. His bullet went into the trunk, changed direction and disappeared, never hitting the elephant's body at all.

quote:

But I prefer straight line penetration above anything else because most of the buffalo I shoot are fleeing.

What struck me was me shooting at a fleeing buff with the 500 Jeffrey and a client shooting the same buffalo with the 9.3x74R and 300 grain Barnes solids.

It was about 100 yards going straight away fast. I hit the left ham and he hit the right and both hits were at about the same place.

My solid did not reach the chest cavity. It swerved and went up into the back. His solid went through to the front of the chest and killed the buff.

It was a Woodleigh 535 grain solid and it did not distort. The boys cut it out and I looked at it. It may have veered upwards into the back and got stopped by the rubbery skin.

********, who hunts for Miombo, has a constant problem with Woodleigh solids veering off course in his 470s. I think it must be the shape of the nose. But on the whole I like them.

OK... "if it aint broke don't fix it" Now I don't know about you, but to me, this is not acceptable performance, and My beef is NOT WITH WOODLEIGH... I have and use and have used many excellent Woodleigh Softs in the past with great success, MY BEEF IS WITH ANY ROUND NOSE SOLID BULLET----PERIOD................

I have personally seen my own round nose solids make 90 degree turns and exit animals... I have heard from hunters all over the world how they have had the same experience with various ROUND NOSE SOLIDS...
I could care less who makes a RN SOlid, none of them are worth a damn for anything when it comes to terminal performance....... At some point, they will veer off course...... When terminals begin, solids are driven by the nose, the nose does all the steering, a pointy or round nose is unstable and unpredictable as to what it will do in any aqueous material, and animals are aqueous.

quote:

I will put my DG experience...in Africa... up against any member of this forum, period. I purchase 500NE from Superior, loaded with Woodleighs, either soft or solid.

Well now, we get to the jest of the matter.... Do you think I am even slightly impressed by whatever DG Experience you might have? Is that supposed to mean something to someone? I am sorry nganga, it means squat to me, and in fact, it makes matters even worse for you. Seems to me that someone with so much experience would be more interested in better performance? Seems to me that someone with so much experience would have some interest in the bullet, ammo, rifle, something? No worries buddy, this is what PH's are for.............

quote:

But for this, it doesn't really matter to me, I had a question and expressed my opinion. I just break the action, shove a couple cartridges in slam it shut and go to work. It's really no more complicated than that to me.

That says about everything that needs to be said.......... I still have not seen you ask a question, maybe I missed it?

quote:

Like Michael said, I obviously don't get it. So nothing to be learned here.

You are 100% correct in that you can learn nothing here...... With your experience, you already know
everything.........

Michael

Geez...

OK, I understand, your anecdotal stories are to bear more weight than me saying I have a boatload of experience, never seeing a quality bullet fail to perform to personal expectations.

And I like that title...

Mr. International Sport Hunter

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:
Nganga

Interesting observation.

You did forget to add "if the words Woodleigh" are mentioned in the post. That sets off Michael like a NASA rocket !!!

I still do not believe, even though Michael pushes it often that as quoted from Todd's post "the difference in barrel strains where the CEB is the easiest on barrels with the Woodleigh FMJ being the hardest!!"

or, is the difference that much AND does it make any bloody difference at all to the gun.
My thoughts are no, because hundreds of thousands of them have been shot and if it was
causing problems, you would know.

So this continuing mention of it to me is superfluous.



BTW, for Michael and I get on fine, we just disagree on a few things so any barbs he throws at me are fine by me. I have a skin thick enough that not even his CEB bullets would penetrate

Now Nigel you know my beef is with any and all RN SOlids, not just the Woodleighs, but any of them.... I have shelves full of Woodleigh Softs, a few Hydros that I tested, and all are just dandy good bullets. In fact, my own 416 B&M was built around a 340 gr Woodleigh Soft... I figured if I could shoot that 340 on everything thin, including all thin skinned dangerous game, I would never need for a soft in 416 again! From my experience using that great bullet in 2005 in 416 Remington.... Round Nose Solids... Any of them.

Nigel, I don't push the barrel strains on anyone, in fact, I rarely even mention it, nor do I much care about it. All the barrel strain tests were done By and FOR DOUBLE RIFLE Shooters, just so happens I had the equipment to do it and it was done here and I keep the records. I don't own a double rifle, and don't want one. For me PERSONALLY, I could give flying crap about barrel strains, my bolt guns don't care either. All these tests were done for the double guys, in conjunction with Sam (Double Guy) and he is the one that suggested it, worked every step of the way with me to make it happen... Was not my idea, but I know I sure put a lot of time in it, effort, $$ and everything else simply for the double guys, it has done nothing for me personally, other than my satisfaction to help other shooters regardless of the platform in which they choose to shoot. Buy it or not, its not for sale, and the science involved really can't be argued with from a logical standpoint.

Strain gages do not lie. I did not make up the info or data, and its repeatable time after time. It's not my fault the strain gages say what they say...........

Like I said, barrel strain has very little personal interest to me, with no doubles to be concerned about, why would I. I also don't have any bullets to sell any of you... I support two Bullet Companies because of the performance, Cutting Edge Bullets and North Fork Bullets......... and have no financial interests in either, I pay for all my bullets the same as everyone else. My interest in any bullet is it's terminal performance, and how it will make me more successful in the field... You know, the bullet does all the work and heavy lifting, regardless of platform or cartridge.... Its all about the "BULLET"....

And of course Nigel, you are I are pals and we have been here before, and will be again and you are welcome to jerk my chain whenever, and as you damn well know, I will jerk back....



M

quote:

Originally posted by Nganga:
Geez...

OK, I understand, your anecdotal stories are to bear more weight than me saying I have a boatload of experience, never seeing a quality bullet fail to perform to personal expectations.

And I like that title...

Mr. International Sport Hunter

YOU DA MAN STEVIE............ NEW NAME.... Mr. International Sport Hunter.........

Those stories are from right here on AR by other folks, many long before my time.... Others are told to me, and I have personally had RN veer... Thus my efforts to seek superior performance, and did so....... As are most other bullet companies, including Woodleigh......... "HYDRO".. Nigel?

M

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:
Shootaway

Flat nosed and Cup nosed bullets work, they have been used before Michael did his testing.

On animals and humans !!!
(not everyone adheres to the Geneva convention !!!)

I have used the cup nosed Woodleigh Hydros,
they do work well. Penetrate more than a RN Woodleigh - as expected but never done a direct comparison on the same animal with a Hydro and a RN Solid but would expect similar, probably a bit more penetration from the Hydro.

The other benefit is you effectively have a Soft RN performance and a Solid in the one bullet. No need to have Solids at the bottom of the Mag like I sometimes do with a bolt action
or one soft and one solid in a double.

Anyway, good jousting with Michael !!!

505G,Why were they not used 50 or so years ago when all those nice rifles were being made?
Was it so difficult back then to cut a copper rod and make a FN solid? Were all the people back then not on the ball or slow to catch on in any way? All of a sudden someone starts shooting FN solids in newspapers and shows us the light?
You can believe in all the crap you want but there are people who have shot hundreds and hundreds of elephant and have not mentioned a word in literature of a RN solid veering off course.

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:
Nganga

Interesting observation.

You did forget to add "if the words Woodleigh" are mentioned in the post. That sets off Michael like a NASA rocket !!!

I still do not believe, even though Michael pushes it often that as quoted from Todd's post "the difference in barrel strains where the CEB is the easiest on barrels with the Woodleigh FMJ being the hardest!!"

or, is the difference that much AND does it make any bloody difference at all to the gun.
My thoughts are no, because hundreds of thousands of them have been shot and if it was
causing problems, you would know.

So this continuing mention of it to me is superfluous.



BTW, for Michael and I get on fine, we just disagree on a few things so any barbs he throws at me are fine by me. I have a skin thick enough that not even his CEB bullets would penetrate

Now Nigel you know my beef is with any and all RN SOlids, not just the Woodleighs, but any of them.... I have shelves full of Woodleigh Softs, a few Hydros that I tested, and all are just dandy good bullets. In fact, my own 416 B&M was built around a 340 gr Woodleigh Soft... I figured if I could shoot that 340 on everything thin, including all thin skinned dangerous game, I would never need for a soft in 416 again! From my experience using that great bullet in 2005 in 416 Remington.... Round Nose Solids... Any of them.

Nigel, I don't push the barrel strains on anyone, in fact, I rarely even mention it, nor do I much care about it. All the barrel strain tests were done By and FOR DOUBLE RIFLE Shooters, just so happens I had the equipment to do it and it was done here and I keep the records. I don't own a double rifle, and don't want one. For me PERSONALLY, I could give flying crap about barrel strains, my bolt guns don't care either. All these tests were done for the double guys, in conjunction with Sam (Double Guy) and he is the one that suggested it, worked every step of the way with me to make it happen... Was not my idea, but I know I sure put a lot of time in it, effort, $$ and everything else simply for the double guys, it has done nothing for me personally, other than my satisfaction to help other shooters regardless of the platform in which they choose to shoot. Buy it or not, its not for sale, and the science involved really can't be argued with from a logical standpoint.

Strain gages do not lie. I did not make up the info or data, and its repeatable time after time. It's not my fault the strain gages say what they say...........

Like I said, barrel strain has very little personal interest to me, with no doubles to be concerned about, why would I. I also don't have any bullets to sell any of you... I support two Bullet Companies because of the performance, Cutting Edge Bullets and North Fork Bullets......... and have no financial interests in either, I pay for all my bullets the same as everyone else. My interest in any bullet is it's terminal performance, and how it will make me more successful in the field... You know, the bullet does all the work and heavy lifting, regardless of platform or cartridge.... Its all about the "BULLET"....

And of course Nigel, you are I are pals and we have been here before, and will be again and you are welcome to jerk my chain whenever, and as you damn well know, I will jerk back....



M

You sound a lot like me.

quote:

Originally posted by Nganga:

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:
Nganga

Interesting observation.

You did forget to add "if the words Woodleigh" are mentioned in the post. That sets off Michael like a NASA rocket !!!

I still do not believe, even though Michael pushes it often that as quoted from Todd's post "the difference in barrel strains where the CEB is the easiest on barrels with the Woodleigh FMJ being the hardest!!"

or, is the difference that much AND does it make any bloody difference at all to the gun.
My thoughts are no, because hundreds of thousands of them have been shot and if it was
causing problems, you would know.

So this continuing mention of it to me is superfluous.



BTW, for Michael and I get on fine, we just disagree on a few things so any barbs he throws at me are fine by me. I have a skin thick enough that not even his CEB bullets would penetrate

Now Nigel you know my beef is with any and all RN SOlids, not just the Woodleighs, but any of them.... I have shelves full of Woodleigh Softs, a few Hydros that I tested, and all are just dandy good bullets. In fact, my own 416 B&M was built around a 340 gr Woodleigh Soft... I figured if I could shoot that 340 on everything thin, including all thin skinned dangerous game, I would never need for a soft in 416 again! From my experience using that great bullet in 2005 in 416 Remington.... Round Nose Solids... Any of them.

Nigel, I don't push the barrel strains on anyone, in fact, I rarely even mention it, nor do I much care about it. All the barrel strain tests were done By and FOR DOUBLE RIFLE Shooters, just so happens I had the equipment to do it and it was done here and I keep the records. I don't own a double rifle, and don't want one. For me PERSONALLY, I could give flying crap about barrel strains, my bolt guns don't care either. All these tests were done for the double guys, in conjunction with Sam (Double Guy) and he is the one that suggested it, worked every step of the way with me to make it happen... Was not my idea, but I know I sure put a lot of time in it, effort, $$ and everything else simply for the double guys, it has done nothing for me personally, other than my satisfaction to help other shooters regardless of the platform in which they choose to shoot. Buy it or not, its not for sale, and the science involved really can't be argued with from a logical standpoint.

Strain gages do not lie. I did not make up the info or data, and its repeatable time after time. It's not my fault the strain gages say what they say...........

Like I said, barrel strain has very little personal interest to me, with no doubles to be concerned about, why would I. I also don't have any bullets to sell any of you... I support two Bullet Companies because of the performance, Cutting Edge Bullets and North Fork Bullets......... and have no financial interests in either, I pay for all my bullets the same as everyone else. My interest in any bullet is it's terminal performance, and how it will make me more successful in the field... You know, the bullet does all the work and heavy lifting, regardless of platform or cartridge.... Its all about the "BULLET"....

And of course Nigel, you are I are pals and we have been here before, and will be again and you are welcome to jerk my chain whenever, and as you damn well know, I will jerk back....



M

You sound a lot like me.

Nganga.... Good one!

Well then maybe I did learn something today.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:
505G,Why were they not used 50 or so years ago when all those nice rifles were being made?
Was it so difficult back then to cut a copper rod and make a FN solid? Were all the people back then not on the ball or slow to catch on in any way? All of a sudden someone starts shooting FN solids in newspapers and shows us the light?
You can believe in all the crap you want but there are people who have shot hundreds and hundreds of elephant and have not mentioned a word in literature of a RN solid veering off course.

Shootaway.

Not sure why no one came up with it 50 years ago. Plenty of different bullets were tried,
anecdotally I don't see flat nose, copper rod in the catalogues.

The 600 Nitro bullet is as close as you seem to get to a Flat Nose bullet.

"You can believe in all the crap you want but there are people who have shot hundreds and hundreds of elephant and have not mentioned a word in literature of a RN solid veering off course."

I think you are mistaken, I do believe in RN Solids. I also believe in Flat nose and / or cup nose bullets.

As to veering off course, well even I will admit that both Flat Nose have veered off course - i think someone gave a personal example a few pages back - and RN have as well.
Partly from deformation.

The other issue with RN is you have different shaped fronts on them, see 600 Nitro, 577 or 505 Gibbs versus the more pointed shaped.


"who have shot hundreds and hundreds of elephant"

Or Thousands of Water Buffalo and other animals !!!

We are lucky in having an endless supply of animals as test medium, particularly when Woodleigh started. I know one person who has shot over 10,000 as sport (not culling with a .308) and most are dissected.

Anyway, all good.

Taylor said the 470 RN solids were too pointed and tumbled or veered. He also said his idea of a perfect shape was like the U with a almost circle nose. Not a quote but you get the gist of it. As shown the 900 gr Woodleigh RN .620 caliber for the 600NE performed well in tests for a big bore.
Why do we see all these RN bullets recovered from game that are bent and bases squashed if they didn't veer. If it goes stright it isn't going to bend into a banana shape.
I love tradition and that's why I like double rifles. Its the only way to hunt! Well that's me and if you like a bolt gun that's your thing. Bolt guns have there place. OK I'm off subject. Back to the RN, I loved the looks of them and used them on some of my hunts. Killed fine. One of my first trips to Michael458's lab I took my mighty 577 double loaded with Woodleigh solids to show him how good penetration was. He said before I shot it will never go over 36 inches. He had never tested a 577 before! Well as you can see in his post above that RN went 14 inches and started tumbling. It was in the bottom of the box at 36 inches. I then shot my homemade flat nose solid and it went dead straight to 68 inches. Made a beleiver out of me! This is what started it all for me helping Michael develope a good flat nose solid. I have seen little 62 grain flat nose bullets drive deeper than all the Woodleigh RNs except the 320 gr 9.3.

Now the average hunter who has never read all of the terminal work done here and in other places by other people doesn't matter. But those that have and still cling to the old I just don't understand why. If I'm going to spend $20000 or more on a hunt for elephant or any other game I want the best possible bullet I can find no matter the cost. It doesn't matter if my animal is 10 yards away or 200 I want to have faith that the bullet I'm using has the best chance of doing the job. If you are happy with a RN solid and a lead core soft point then have fun and enjoy your hunt. If you like Flat nose solids and non conventional bullets then happy days for you to.

I find it hard to beleive that this debate is going again and probably should have just read and watched but I had to put in my 2 cents worth.

quote:

Originally posted by Nganga:
Well then maybe I did learn something today.

Then it has been a good day.................. Learning can be painful sometimes,
but always an adventure........

Michael

Hey Nigel,

Sorry buddy but I've got to take you to task a bit concerning the barrel strains. I'll tell you why I continue to push the strain data Sam and Michael proved.

It has to do with the fact than when I first showed up on this forum, just the slightest mention of shooting the Barnes Banded solids and TSX bullets in my doubles would quickly draw a succession of posts condemning my use of those bullets, stating that if I continued, I'd soon see the rifling spit out the end of my barrel, see the rifling appear on the outside of the barrel (both referred to as OSR), and I'd be lucky if I got off with simply having the solder holding the barrels together melt out with the barrels completely separating. All of this based on an old wives tale generated as a continuation of the industry undermining of the Barnes X design by bullet manufacturers when they suddenly realized that bullet design had taken a quantum leap forward and they were now behind. Much easier to make your product look good by making the other design look bad kind of thing you know! Much cheaper than taking on the R&D necessary to catch up. I will say Kudos to Woodliegh for doing just that however with their development of the Hydro!

So now that actual data has been developed, ie the work Michael and Sam did concerning the barrel strains, all of a sudden we find out that three of the 4 most recommended bullets (Woodleigh FMJ, Hornady DGS, and Hornady DGX), actually produce the HIGHEST strains. Further, the bore rider monos that took the brunt of criticism, actually show the LEAST strain. Exactly backwards from the old wives tale stated above. Poetic justice if you ask me! Even to the point that Butch Searcy has recommended the TSX in his rifles!

So now that the truth has been exposed, many of the guys perpetuating the old wives tale of the monos destroying double guns, now want to just set the issue aside and claim that barrel strains really just don't matter. But damn if it didn't matter before the numbers were proven!

Personally, I don't like being manipulated by marketing departments. That's one of the reasons I value Michael and Sam's work. They don't represent the bullet makers, despite what many here would have us believe. They are independent shooters just like the rest of us concerning bullet performance. What convinces me of that? We'll, I have read the entire Terminal Thread from front to back. In those pages, you'll see where ideas they came up with, failed, and as a result, they reported them as straight failures. Likewise with the ideas that worked. Even as they tweaked the successes, they would often find that those tweaks fell flat. Again, they reported it objectively.

Just another example, the flat nosed Barnes were highly touted as a great bullet. After the sell out, Barnes went back to the round nose design, even enlisting the "help" of some industry experts to market the new (old) round nose as being the cats ass, where just months prior, the same company was pushing the Flat Nose as being the same cats butt! Marketing manipulation pure and simple! But even within the discussion of the Flat Nosed Barnes bullet, some just didn't meet the standard, such as the Banded Solid 9.3. That bullet tumbled and veered off course just like some of the round nosed bullets. If Michael was simply touting the FN over the RN, and not focussing on actual terminal performance, I doubt he would have reported the actual findings of that bullet. With the Flat nosed BBW#13 design, there have been experiments with lengthening or shortening the nose projection, the radius of the meplat, size of the meplat, etc. Each time, the actual results were posted. Again, if it were simply about pushing the FN over the RN, why go to the hassle of tweaking the designs one way or the other? It would make no sense to do so. But for the guy attempting to get the absolute best performance out of the projectile, it makes perfect sense. That's why I'm on board with the data! As I've stated previously, I do my absolute best to form opinions based on objective and repeatable data that I can confirm and do my best to sniff out bullshit when I hear it, such as the OSR thing!

Hey, I love double guns but the widely held belief that they are short range weapons is nothing more than the result of guys settling for loads that are not truly optimized to their particular gun. Sure, if you just purchase a box of factory fodder, such as Hornady makes, you're restricted to whatever performance that factory box of cartridges gives you. If it crosses at 50 yards, your stuck with a 50 yard weapon; likewise with the barrels separating. But, doing a bit of fine tuning with different bullets and powders, one can (I won't say easily because it usually isn't) get the rifle to shoot near parallel for whatever distance the shooter can use iron sights! A detachable scope will extend that further. Just yesterday, as I'm working up for my safari next month, I had that 9.3x74R Chapuis with 1.25x4 Trijicon, shooting the 255gr CEB Non-Con into a 4" "Shoot-N-See" target's bullseye at 200 yards! Each barrel shooting about 1.5" with the centers of each barrel shooting about 3.5" apart. Certainly good enough to employ that rifle on leopard as it already has a lion to it's credit.

Personally, I want to shoot the bullet that No. 1) performs best on the game animal, 2) shoots the most accurately, and 3) is easiest on my rifle. Luckily, all three of those combinations currently exist with the bore rider monos. But, I'll say it's not necessarily the same bullet across the board. I've found the 570gr North Fork solid to be the most accurate in my 500NE with the 475gr tipped CEB at 2415fps the best for an expanding bullet. That 475gr at that speed not being traditional, but rather the best performer in MY rifle. But the Chapuis shoots the CEBs best, and that was determined after 14 load / bullet combinations.

All that is a long winded way of saying, I really don't care who the manufacturer is. Whatever meets those 3 criteria best is what I'm going to shoot, regardless of how they look. But speaking of that, how bloody awesome does this look in a 500NE round?



And the way they shoot at 50 yards, open sights, off of sticks? No way that's a 40 yard weapon only! I think I'm finally going to have to break down and move the sights however as I'm just bloody consistently shooting a bit to the right.

First two shots:



Next two shots:



YMMV boys. Bye! I'm going huntin!

Todd

No worries.

Good post.

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:
Todd

No worries.

Good post.

Just to make sure Nigel, you and I are:

Todd,

Yes, You, Michael and I are

All good and will continue to be, regardless of any differences of opinion.

Todd......
Very excellent, thank you very much.........

And yes, that is the most wicked looking 500 NE that has ever rolled down the pike! Don't forget, Sam and I have seen that same bullet slam big brawny heavy duty TANKS of Australian Bulls straight to the dirt, as if hammered by Thor himself, and at that time Sam was not running but around 2150 fps... Imagine what it is going to do at 2300++................... I can't wait to hear your words on this...........

Nigel... We clear....


By the way, in case you did not know, I HAVE A NEW TOY THAT HAS LEFT OEHLER TODAY.......... System 83 to do pressures, I will have it in hand next week and want to talk about having some fun......

Powder Blending........ That is just one little project I have in mind to finish out...... There are many more
rolling around in my head.......

M

You really start to Notice 570gns at 2300 fps.

Eye opener.

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:
You really start to Notice 570gns at 2300 fps.

Eye opener.

If not before! 2000fps is about where I start paying attention!

It does partly depend on the gun.

Of 4 x 500 Nitro doubles, it is interesting to see the difference between them with the same load.

One didn't fit me well but balanced beautifully,
2 of others fitted me well but were barrel heavy
and the 4th was a short stumpy that is a handful
with most loads (or would be for most people).