Noticing all of the bullet testing you did recently, I would like to ask which bullets of those tested do you intend to use in the future? Which do you intend to avoid?
Also, of those you tested in your .500 Searcy, did the ones tested all regulate properly or were the loads purely experimental to check for penetration?
1. All bullets tested regulated fine and hit just right for a 6 o'clock hold at at 50 yards. The GS Custom were easiest to regulate and were the most accurate. Bridger were 2nd most accurate in my double (but most accurate in some other guns) and took little effort to regulate. Woodleighs were only so-so accurate in my .500 dbl, but were plenty accurate for DG hunting.
2. To the greatest extent possible, all shots were fired on live standing game. But additional shots were fired on most of the game once it was down.
3. For body shots, Bridger and GS Custom are clearly best for penetration. For body shots, North Cup nose are not far behind on penetration, but create a larger wound channel. For head shots, I would still use flat nose solids, but Woodleigh was not too far behind. That may be because on head shots there is less opportunity for supercavitation (vapor bubble) to occur.
4. In the future, I would avoid Barnes solids and other solids with a hemispherical round nose. And to the extent that my rifle will feed them, I have a strong preference for flat nose solids.
Thank you, I had wondered how those would regulate because some of what I had read indicated that the doubles chambered in NE cartridges required the "original" bullet configuration to regulate properly.
I haven't used flat nose bullets of any sort in rifles yet but based on my experience with comparing round noses to SWC's and LBT's in handguns I've always wanted to try flat noses in rifles.
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
