Quote:

---

Quote:

---

No over .40 Flanged Nitro Express has a CIP MAP that high (save the .500/.416, which operates at 45,000 PSI with normal loads). So, we know that the bullet can't obturate, for two reasons. The material used is too hard, and there's no compressible core. Barnes says the bullets are slightly undersize, which I don't contest. That helps, but it can't be an answer. A hard .407" mono that has to pass down a .400" bore/.408" groove barrel still has a lot of metal to displace - metal that Barnes specifically states is difficult to displace - in order to conform to the bore. In the thin tubes of a double rifle, that's almost a guarantee of problems.

---

Now THAT makes a lot of sense, best, Mike

---

It does and it's pretty basic stuff.

If the driving bands of this bullet described here were the only part of the bullet that met the .407 diameter {.001 under groove depth}, and they were designed correctly, and the rest of the bullet was merely bore riding, there should be no problem at all, even in a thin tube rifle, assuming the charge is worked up to carefully, SOP of course.

I can certainly see how the full groove depth of the bullet, the shank diameter, or the driving band surface area, any of them whether by themselves or in concert together could cause problems. Since {I think} doubles in the older NE calibers vary quite a bit in chamber, leade and bore dimensions, the onus would certainly be on the shooter to make sure modern bullets fit the gun and don't cause any damage. I say modern bullets, and not just Barnes, because it seems we have ever greater numbers of "hard" bullets on the market, some expanding, some "solid". This predicament will probably only get worse as higher and higher performance bullets are demanded by shooters and/or laws require non-lead bullets.

It is interesting, because though in this case it is easy to look back to the "golden years" when just about any bullet was safe for use in a double, it can't be forgotten that many of the old bullets were criticized for poor terminal performance...

Certainly a company like Woodleigh can be commended for sticking to tried and true, but one here has warned against the overuse {?} of their solids, and from what I have seen of them sectioned, I can certainly understand that. Again, personally, I'd check dimensions with a fine tooth comb before shooting any of the hard ones, or really, any bullets at all! I guess being ignorant about doubles might have its advantage, because I have read so much about the wide variations and non-standard chamber/leade/bore dimensions that I'd be checking any bullet at all for every dimension...from cast to jacketed...just like we do with cast bullets.

Is this not always done by old double shooters? Seems like the old guns should be treated like an old wall-hanger front stuffer to me. I mean, just who says Federal .470 {or any other modern maker} is going to fit every .470; old Belgian, Brit, German, whatever, not to mention the reborn moderns. No, I'm not throwing a rock at Federal, but I really wonder. Maybe I'm wrong and the old NE guns are all the same, but I don't think so.

--------------------
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