quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
It looks like the flat heads and the round heads are at it again. I have used both with excellent results from both. I will select the nose shape that gives me the best advantage for the particular hunt conditions I expect to encounter. I guess I am some where between the flat heads and round heads!

I will say here that the differences between the two are largely exaggerated by both sides. Whether you are looking at penetration depth or straight line penetration it is not as simple as saying that this type is always the best. Look for an article from me in African Hunter Magazine that will try to give an objective evaluation of both bullet nose shapes.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Funny how all the raging argument used to be that mono bullets would destroy your double gun barrels, but then after it was shown that the "traditional" FMJ bullets by Woodleigh and Hornady were No. 1 and No. 2 in terms of the highest strains produced, all of a sudden, barrel strains caused by a bullet are insignificant?! Can't be both ways!

....Mac >>>===(x)===> MacD37, ...and DUGABOY1
DRSS Charter member
"If I die today, I've had a life well spent, for I've been to see the Elephant, and smelled the smoke of Africa!"~ME 1982

Hands of Old Elmer Keith

quote:

Originally posted by MacD37:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Funny how all the raging argument used to be that mono bullets would destroy your double gun barrels, but then after it was shown that the "traditional" FMJ bullets by Woodleigh and Hornady were No. 1 and No. 2 in terms of the highest strains produced, all of a sudden, barrel strains caused by a bullet are insignificant?! Can't be both ways!

Todd all your post is absolutely true, and spot on except for the quote above. What you posted there is true as well, but didn't explain that the mono-metal bullets that caused the OSR was not the mono-metal bullets you are using. The offending mono-metal bullet that caused the OSR and rib separations was the old Barnes super solid, which had a two diameter shape with the front half being bore diameter, while the back half being groove diameter with NO pressure rings with cuts between the rings deep enough to allow a place for the displaced metal by the rifleing engraving to go. OSR is real, and not an old wives tale. I agree that some of the OSR was caused by the old steel C&C solids in many vintage doubles as well.

The new Mono-metal solids with pressure rings or bore-rider rings, are perfectly safe in even vintage doubles, and I agree that they develop far less strain than steel jacketed C&C solids, but the older Bronze two diameter solids, without the pressure rings did create more strain than either of the pressure ring , or C&C steel.

When discussing mono-metal solids, it is necessary to make the difference apparent between the bore rider mono-metal solid with pressure rings, and the original two diameter mono-metal solids without the rings. Not doing so, gives the new guy the idea that all mono-metal solids are OK in a double rifle and that is certainly not the case!

......................................................................

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
I have to show my ignorance here but I don't understand several aspects of the strain gauge tests. Exactly what does the strain gauge measure? Is it barrel pressure, barrel expansion as the bullet passes the gauge or ???? Has SAAMI or White's Lab come up with any standards as exactly at what strain level barrel damage can occur? Michael has shown more barrel strain with some bullets than others but are they all still with in acceptable standards?

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:
Todd

Are you saying that higher barrel strains mean unsafe bullets / lower barrel strain mean Safe bullets ?

If so, then that is a long bow to draw as their is no evidence that barrel strain does cause anything.

No. I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that prior to the barrel strain info developed my Michael and Sam on the pages of the "Double Rifle Bullet of the Future" thread here on AR, many "EXPERTS" here WERE saying just that.

Plus can you or Michael answer 465H&H's question
as he put it so well.

I'll leave the more technical details for Michael or Sam to relate.


IMHO, Barrel strain does not equate to OSR,
many other factors involved. I do believe OSR exists, having seen it on one gun (Bolt action)
and know of it on a couple of doubles).

If OSR does exist, but barrel strain doesn't cause it, what do you think DOES cause it Nigel? As posted, I've seen the "striping" as well, but don't think it was caused by a bullet and don't think it is a result of the rifling being "over stressed". I think that "striping" is something completely different and the main reason I say that is that on the bolt rifle I had showing it, the "striping' was much MUCH tighter than the actual rifling on the inside of the barrel.

However, if your answer is that a bullet causes it, aren't we back to saying that there are "safe" and "unsafe bullets"?

quote:

If OSR does exist, but barrel strain doesn't cause it, what do you think DOES cause it Nigel?

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Sorry Mac, but we disagree on this one. Strongly, but respectfully.

....Mac >>>===(x)===> MacD37, ...and DUGABOY1
DRSS Charter member
"If I die today, I've had a life well spent, for I've been to see the Elephant, and smelled the smoke of Africa!"~ME 1982

Hands of Old Elmer Keith

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:
Todd

How do you know 100% that Barrel strain causes damage.

Do you know that any barrel strain caused by the "bad" mono metal bullets is what causes the damage and not something else what we don't know about ?

You are assuming that barrel strain is an issue in causing OSR or damage to a rifle barrel.

As 465 put
"Michael has shown more barrel strain with some bullets than others but are they all still with in acceptable standards?"

Are they still within acceptable standards ??????

The fact that thousands of bullets, Woodleigh, Hornady are fired every year, no issues.


And finally, why do you put HIGHER or HIGHEST in capitals when talking about it ?


I could make a statement about bad performance (ie Higher pressure signs), damage to barrels by CEB, Northfork or other bullets and rehash it here all the time, does that make it right until someone can prove it is not ?

Same goes with the highest barrels strains,
you have to PROVE what it does before it is an issue yet you continue to highlight it.

quote:

IMO, the main reason for this disparity is MARKETING AND ADVERTISING MANIPULATION OF THE POTENTIAL CLIENT BASE.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
I have to show my ignorance here but I don't understand several aspects of the strain gauge tests. Exactly what does the strain gauge measure? Is it barrel pressure, barrel expansion as the bullet passes the gauge or ???? Has SAAMI or White's Lab come up with any standards as exactly at what strain level barrel damage can occur? Michael has shown more barrel strain with some bullets than others but are they all still with in acceptable standards?

465H&H

Yes, "well said" in terms of proving the point I was making. Barrel strains most definitely WERE an issue prior to the strain data Michael and Sam developed, and the culprit was suggested to be monometal bullets. Now that the data shows the Hornady bullets and the steel jacketed Woodleigh FMJ to produce the HIGHEST strains of all the commercial bullet offerings, IT IS NO LONGER an issue! Did SAAMI or White's Lab come up with any standards prior to this data being developed or was it just taken for granted by the local sewing group, (made up of old wives telling tall tales ) that the "traditional LOOKING" bullets were safe? Again, it can't be both ways, it has to be one or the other, unless you just enjoy being duped by marketing departments.

But your statement DOES show that you didn't follow the development of the data very well at all, especially where you ask about what the strain gauges measured concerning barrel pressure or expansion as the bullet passes. If you go back and read those pages again, you'll see where Michael and Sam went to great lengths to remove the actual pressure from the equation and only measure the strain of the bullet as it passed down the barrel. They will need to chime in here with more detailed info as I wasn't there, but rather just a student of the data and processes they used to develop it. But I specifically remember Michael discussing in detail, how they had to back the charges down significantly in order to separate the barrel strain from the cartridge's pressure as produced from the powder charge. IIRC, this resulted in significantly reduced charges in order to get the bullet's passing out in front of the pressure spike.

So where are we now? Are all of these bullets "Safe" to fire in a double rifle. Probably so! And that's really the good news. That still doesn't change the fact that there was a significant effort to undermine the new bullet designs by casting them out as "UNSAFE" in double rifles and likely to cause your rifling to go spitting out the muzzle!

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
I have to show my ignorance here but I don't understand several aspects of the strain gauge tests. Exactly what does the strain gauge measure? Is it barrel pressure, barrel expansion as the bullet passes the gauge or ???? Has SAAMI or White's Lab come up with any standards as exactly at what strain level barrel damage can occur? Michael has shown more barrel strain with some bullets than others but are they all still with in acceptable standards?

465H&H

quote:

I was well aware of Michael's problem with pressure affecting his strain gauge readings. What he was talking about there was akin to chamber pressure but further down the barrel, primarily caused by expanding gases. The pressure I was talking about was the pressure that the bullet puts against the barrel wall as it passes through the bore. Two entirly different things.

quote:

Originally posted by Grenadier:
Michael, can you tell us the actual diameters of each of the .470 solid bullets?

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Michael,

You owe me an apology. I did not know exactly how the strain gauge worked and that is why I asked. If you are going to accuse me of such things then it will mean that I will lose a valuable source of info as I won't make that mistake again. I made no comment other than to ask for information on how it works and you turned it around to say that I was somehow disparaging your work. I thought we were better friends than that! I am very disappointed.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Michael,

You owe me an apology. I did not know exactly how the strain gauge worked and that is why I asked. If you are going to accuse me of such things then it will mean that I will lose a valuable source of info as I won't make that mistake again. I made no comment other than to ask for information on how it works and you turned it around to say that I was somehow disparaging your work. I thought we were better friends than that! I am very disappointed.

465H&H

Are you for real?..... Of course we are friends and will remain so, and whatever I said above, I would say to you personally as well. But if your question was honest and real, then of course you have my sincere apology, as I took the mention of "SAMMI" and "Whites" lab as something entirely different from my perspective......... and somewhat degrading...... (Since Michael is Not SAMMI or White.. Then of what value is it?) No, I ain't SAMMI or Whites....... And don't want to be......

Michael

quote:

to say they have piss poor performance is crap.

quote:

Originally posted by michael458:

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.



Michael

quote:

And you still haven't answered 465's question.

"but are they all still with in acceptable standards?"

In other words, does it really matter ?

quote:

The Strain Gage measures the amount the barrel expands as the bullet passes the point at which the strain gage is attached. The reading comes out in PSI, as the strain gages and equipment are set to measure chamber pressures in PSI. The higher the number, the more the barrel expands, the lower the number the barrel expands less.

quote:

Now what does all this mean????? It is very simply a comparison of the various bullets measuring the expansion of the barrel as that bullet passes that point. Other than that.. Nothing.

quote:

Oh and by the way, as far as barrels coming apart, personally I think that has more to do with the manufacturer putting them together than any other issue that has ever been thought of. If they don't do the right kind of job to begin with, then its going to come apart, and then they love to blame that crap on something else....... It is also my believe that you can't possibly take something and glue two barrels together and expect it to take the abuse a single barrel will, and I am talking 1000s on top of 1000s of rounds shot, some with all sorts of wild pressures going on, like Sam and I have seen with various fillers running pressures to 50000-55000. There are all sorts of more logical reasons for barrels to come apart than a bullet going down the bore. In fact, I would have a bullet going down the bores as about the very last reason barrels would come apart....... And I would start with the manufacturer 1st and foremost if it were me.

quote:

Originally posted by Code4:
Sounds like Michael458 is trying to justify re-inventing the wheel.

quote:

Originally posted by 505G:
If barrel strain was such an issue, I'd like to see Michael to a test of a 450/400 with small bores - around the .407 / .408 size with the following bullet sizes.

.408, .410 and .411.

I'd also like to see the same tests done with the same bullets but in a 450/400 with barrels that measure .411 or above (.412 / .413).


The reason being, for many many years everyone was shooting .410/.411 bullets including Woodleighs.

I haven't heard of a great issue with this
yet from what Michael is saying, higher barrel strains will result .

But no problems with barrels of these guns seem to exist.

It wasn't until some Yank ordered some .408 bullets because of some barrels that they had made in .408 that the different bullet diameters came about.

If they had stuck to .410 / .411, god it would have been easier.


As far as I am concerned, none of Michael's data has proved anything except one bullet in his gun / barrels produced a higher barrel strain without any cause and effect.

quote:

The Strain Gage measures the amount the barrel expands as the bullet passes the point at which the strain gage is attached. The reading comes out in PSI, as the strain gages and equipment are set to measure chamber pressures in PSI. The higher the number, the more the barrel expands, the lower the number the barrel expands less.

quote:

To your knowledge has anyone correlated barrel strain to barrel wear or damage? That was the question!

quote:

The fact you didn't measure the bullet diameters at the beginning says a lot to me.

quote:

Bridger may have been the first but North Fork and GS Custom quickly followed.