Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The fact is that the actual bullets do the killing.A better bullet acting within the velocity/energy parameters of the cartridge/rifle hunted makes a better mousetrap.

---

I'm confused about this "new" bullet technology. In what way are these bullets better?
They certainly don't mushroom better, so it could be argued that in this they are not better.
Unless striking heavy bone, they will pass right through like any solid. Better? No.
Risk of decreased barrel life or damage, real or perceived. A good attribute? No.

So, can anyone with experience shooting these and regular FMJ solids with comparisons in on-game performance give us results outside of the theoretical realm?
How can we accept that tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of one shot kills on dangerous game in the past century were in any way accomplished with "inferior" bullets?

I must confess, I am firmly in the "if it aint broke, don't fix it" camp. For me, this applies to my guns, chamberings, and the ammunition. IMHO, there's not much in the post-war (WW2) hunting world which I would classify as measurable improvement in killing performance. Powders may be just about it...

Back to the topic, can the solid brass bullets be annealed to make them a little softer?

---

"So, can anyone with experience shooting these and regular FMJ solids with comparisons in on-game performance give us results outside of the theoretical realm?"

My previous post noting the greater penetration of trucated flat nose solids was based on actual in the field experience on elephants and cape buffalo.

I found that .458" 450gr North Fork truncated cone flat nose mono metal driving band solids at 2190fps outpenetrated 500gr Woodleigh round nose steel jacketed solids at 2145fps by +/- 40% in either body shots or brain shots - and missed brain shots.

Fellow NE member 500 Grains has found similar penetration results, but with less difference in penetration, on order of 10% on body shots, iirc, similar penetration on elephant brain shots.

If you do the math you will find that the North Fork load has less energy, so is it the bullet or the velocity differential? I think it is the bullet, and believe the fact that the flat nose has less energy but yet penetrates significantly more supports my conclusion.

I could not detect any difference in knock down or knock out or impact effect between the bullets when my frontal brain shots were imperfect. The 450's knock elephants down or out in similar fashion to the 500's when I have missed the brain.

Further, recovered bullets show no signs of tumbling, unlike round nose bullets which I believe have a strong tendency to tumble when they have lost the greater portion of their velocity, maybe that is even the only reason for the greater pentration of the flat noses. Evidence of round noses tumbling includes flattened or split bases, bent bullets, out of round bullets.

Greater penetration when elephant hunting is ALWAYS a plus since the attitude of the head and the angle of the shot are known only after the fact. When your twelve or ten or even less yards from the elephant and it turns to you there isn't really much option but to take that shot, there isn't any opportunity to wait until the angle or head attitude is better.

Also, the North Forks I've recovered show no signs of the body of the bullets being engraved, only the thin driving bands, so there is no barrel, bore, solder joint, etc threat. In fact, I believe that the North Fork and similar true driving band bullets are easier on the rifle than steel jacketed solids and by a considerable margin.

So, yes, the flat nose, truncated cone, driving band, mono metal solids are better than round nose steel jacketed solids when each is used at appropriate velocity and weight.

That doesn't make the round noses incapable of doing the job, just second best at doing that job.

JPK
Edited to note that Barnes are niehter truncated cone flat nose solids nor driving band bullets becaue of their round ogive on the first point and the fact that the body or shank of the bullet is engraved "beneath" the bands and because the body or shank of the bullet is engraved where there are no bands.

Edited by JPK (21/09/08 12:56 PM)

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

GSC has been mentioned a number of times so, for the record, our position on the mono bullet in a double rifle debate is simple: If a double rifle delaminates as a result of using GSC drive band bullets in it, we will pay for the repair.

---

Even less reason to worry about whether Barnes is suitable
For me, the real debate is whether the drive-band solid is actually superior to the full length FMJ........
I'm pretty sure I can anticipate what a few responses will be!

---

A truncated cone flat nose solid is better than a round nose solid for penetration. North Fork and GS Custom have truncated cone flat noses. Barnes does not.

Maybe the best of both worlds wll turn out to be the non-truncated cone flat nose 500gr Hornaday steel jacketed, lead cored solid.

Even though the flat noses are better for penetration, the .458", 500gr round nose steel jackets solid Woodleighs I've used at 2145fps MV have provided enough. The 450gr North Forks at 2190fps MV have provided quite a bit more than enough.

JPK

---

+++++++++++++++


JPK

Not sure if you or anyone else saw the test done by HANDLOADER MAGAZINE" sometime ago--but it was amazing in the difference the truncated solids had versus the round...it also explained the theory as to why this happens..I am sure if anyone is interested you could get on their web site and find the info..

Question presented in the article was on feeding..some rifles it was stating had problems with it..
Not sure if that is accurate..I have not had any problems what so ever...

Ripp

--------------------
ALL MEN DIE, BUT FEW MEN TRULY LIVE..

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I don't remember ever having a feeding problem with a Double. Maybe it's just me.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Then you have H&H saying don't use their big bore elephant rifles on elephants since you can't shoot any solids in their rifles.
JPK

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

.so classed as hard were partition,solid copper or brass or bronze or steel in the core.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

So, if you hunt enough elephants that you break the solder joint or wear out your barrels through hunting and practice,

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

jpk all i was stating came from the pages of wrights book.have you ever read it or do you just disagree with his view.it is your right to.when your book comes out i will be glad to read it to.plenty of elephants have been slayed with soft bullets.look at all the black powder and lead bullet kills that have been talied over the centuries.a solid is but another means to do it it is not the only way.as far as hard bullets read the chapter on them and the test he preformed.if you dont believe him sell the book there are plenty of people who still want to buy it.this pot is far from being cooked its just simmering and being stirred.

---

Interesting in that historically FMJs or solids were advised for a LOT of African hunting because the softs at the time were so unreliable. Unlike the excellent bullets often available today. Re Finn Aaguard comments.

But I must say I have only ever heard of FMJ's and "solids" being advised for elephant.

--------------------
John aka NitroX

...
Govt get out of our lives NOW!
"I love the smell of cordite in the morning."
"A Sharp spear needs no polish"

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

JPK: Finally, here is a portion of an interesting email sent to me by Ty Herring from Barnes pertaining to this thread:

Barnes performed conclusive testing and put it in our newsletter with our "blessing" to use the Banded Solids in doubles. We also suggested that anyone with evidence of damage call us. I'm not surprised to see that no one came up with a damaged barrel even after a $400 reward was issued. Quite simply, the issue doesn't exist and or isn't tied to the Barnes Banded Solid bullet.

You and I discussed the fact that we used the Oehler system and a strain gauge to measure outside barrel expansion / pressure. I would think this fact would give additional credibility to the tests we performed and curb the ridiculous notion that suggests our bullet causes OSR and you are welcome to post this information if you like.

End Quote.

Personally, I think both bullet buyers and double gun buyers ought never to forget these words:

"BUYER BEWARE".

---

Hey you realy try to sell those barnes dont you? do I sense a shareholder.

It would be vary hard for ayone to state a perticially bullet ruined their gun, if it a 100 year old gun it would be impossible.
If they used the strain gauge system, ask them for the hole grapf of the test, than it would be possible to see the pressure in sertan lengts of the barrel (barrel time). I cant understand why they didnt use it in the first place as to curves on a grapf is more simple to follow by a "deadly" than only pressures. To be honest a straingauge would never be accepted in any proofhouse or by any ammunition manufactor.

Btw. What manufactor does provides double ammo loaded with barnes solids?

And again i must point out that im not saying the barnes ar crap only that i would not use the untill this mess is sorted out.

--------------------
Andreas

"Yeas it kicks like a mule he said, but always remember that its much worse standing on the other end"

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Finally, here is a portion of an interesting email sent to me by Ty Herring from Barnes pertaining to this thread:

Barnes performed conclusive testing and put it in our newsletter with our "blessing" to use the Banded Solids in doubles. We also suggested that anyone with evidence of damage call us. I'm not surprised to see that no one came up with a damaged barrel even after a $400 reward was issued. Quite simply, the issue doesn't exist and or isn't tied to the Barnes Banded Solid bullet.

You and I discussed the fact that we used the Oehler system and a strain gauge to measure outside barrel expansion / pressure. I would think this fact would give additional credibility to the tests we performed and curb the ridiculous notion that suggests our bullet causes OSR and you are welcome to post this information if you like.

End Quote.

---

I am wondering about what was NOT said by Mr. Herring. What is his, or his company's, position on use of the Barnes X bullets in a DR? That's where all the trouble started. Whether or not the banded bullet cured the problem is subject to debate. Does he deny that a problem ever existed with the X bullets in DR's?

Curl

--------------------
RoscoeStephenson.com

YOUR DOUBLE RIFLE IS YOUR BEST FRIEND.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

jpk all i was stating came from the pages of wrights book.have you ever read it or do you just disagree with his view.it is your right to.when your book comes out i will be glad to read it to.plenty of elephants have been slayed with soft bullets.look at all the black powder and lead bullet kills that have been talied over the centuries.a solid is but another means to do it it is not the only way.as far as hard bullets read the chapter on them and the test he preformed.if you dont believe him sell the book there are plenty of people who still want to buy it.this pot is far from being cooked its just simmering and being stirred.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I am wondering about what was NOT said by Mr. Herring. What is his, or his company's, position on use of the Barnes X bullets in a DR? That's where all the trouble started. Whether or not the banded bullet cured the problem is subject to debate. Does he deny that a problem ever existed with the X bullets in DR's?

Curl

---

Curl, great question! I don't know the answer. Maybe somebody can call them and ask. They seem to be very eager to provide any info I've requested. {Remember, too, I've never shot a Barnes Banded Solid, and have never tried to size one in my drawing dies, either.}

450___366:

If you read my posts, I would think that you would think I'm trying to hawk Heym, Merkel and Chapuis doubles!!

Maybe something is lacking in the translation, but I am NOT, repeat NOT, a "proponent" of Barnes bullets for doubles, per se. All I have done here is to ask questions about the bold assertions of some who have condemned Barnes. That is all. I've given my opinions as to what I think might be occurring, but I am not a ballistician and I am not an expert. I've never said I was.

I totally agree that there may be some internal ballistic mechanism that causes damage to doubles when certain "hard" bullets are used, a mechanism that may be difficult to prove or to disprove. But what is a "hard" bullet? Is it ONLY a monolithic solid, or is JPK's "heirarchy" of bullet hardnesses closer to the truth: "Soft"=NF..."Harder"=Woodleigh..."Hard"=Barnes?

I have attempted merely to present as many facts and suppositions as I can, not "in support" of either side, since I really do not know the truth in the matter. One side, Barnes, has been willing to converse and provide their "proofs". The other side has disappeared and is silent. Why? If their views are so universally accepted, proven beyond a doubt and obvious to even the uninformed, then why have they not provided a single shred of proof as in photos of damaged guns and of recovered bullets, documentation, measurements of recovered or engraved bullets and bores, etc. Heck, we've been told that one fellow has seen "dozens" of guns wrecked by {which bullets...?} mono bullets. I have no axe to grind. I asked questions in good faith and in anticipation of good faith answers. Others have offered money and as far as I know there is yet $400 laying "on the table" even yet.

Bwananelson's reference to the book source is the closest we get. Checking it with Barnes Oehler tests would be interesting {"How much pressure does it take to bulge the test barrel"?}. But so far absolutely ZERO from those who made the boldest assertions at the start of this thread. And absolutely NOTHING at all about "BARNES BANDED SOLIDS" which we must remember is, after all, the topic RIPP posted about. We shouldn't condemn BBS because XYZ mono's wrecked a barrel. Unless it is also acceptable to condemn Hornady's because Woodleighs wrecked a barrel, or some such other poor logic.

I find it interesting that when an attempt to dig for the truth is made in this matter, it is so hard to get info from one side while I am accused of supporting the other side which, actually, I am not. All I am interested in is the truth. Are we all here simply to bow down and accept in some puppet-like manner the suppositions of one side only? Which side?? Rereading the first half of the thread, it is pretty obvious some have vehement aggression toward Barnes. I have merely attempted to find out just exactly why.

If you want to know my personal opinion, it is this: I suspect that the "hardness" of a bullet may indeed cause damage to some guns {excessive barrel wear, but not bulging, with some "mono" bullets IS a repeated problem cited by my military sources some of which I've cited}, but other factors may also come into play in a matrix of effects and some other factors may even be in some cases more important than the bullet, the bullet merely being "the last straw": internal bore/groove dimensions, handload pressure, OAL, gun quality and gun condition to name a few.

AND I suspect that mono bullets are not the only "hard" bullets out there. When it comes to shooting a thin-tubed double that I may have paid a lot of money for, I personally would be very careful indeed about what I shot thru it and I don't blame anybody for steering clear of this or that bullet for whatever reason...

...and, my humble opinion is that I suspect there just may be many "fine doubles" that after the use they have been subjected to and/or age and/or original materials of construction should be shelved with their chambers welded shut, because if not, and if they continue to be shot, may at some point "let go", and when such a gun lets go with a Woodleigh or a Barnes Banded Solid, the bullets shouldn't be blamed, no matter how much money the fellow paid for the gun. Just because it's beautifully made and frightfully expensive doesn't mean it's safe.

CAVEAT EMPTOR

--------------------
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Post Extras: