Going to do some more testing this weekend. Tests have little meaning if you never point them at a critter. Among this weekends test are some penetration with the .475 linbaugh, .480 Ruger, .45 Colt (stretch) and what ever else I dig up. I should note that in testing this stuff there are enough miths floating around to write a books called single action fairy tails. I don't have any unrealistic notions of the .475 out penetrating my .416 Rigby rifle. last time around the .416 out did every pistol we have tried by at least 60" in damp print. The only reasom it didn't beat the pistols by anouther 12" is we ran out of room. If you have never shot a .416 RIgby +P with a 400gr solid it is quite the specticle!! Don't expect anything different this time. What I do hope to do is figure out a comparison index of what it takes to reach water buffalo vitals and destroy them using data that already worked in the .475 then comparing it to the numbers from the ballistic buff. Then all the shooting paper can mean something. Its all fun though!

reflex. I have a Ruger mkII bolt rifle in 416 Rigby and can agree with you about shooting 400gr solid handloads. The scar over my right eye is proof... Will wait to hear about testing. Have fun.....

Reflex, first off, let me say it was a real breath of fresh air to talk to someone who will admit that velocity makes a REAL difference in performance and penetration when it comes to bullet testing! I am speaking of & comparing shooting large diameter, heavy for caliber bullets at various velocities. In my testing of these bullets on dead bovines, I have seen in every instance that when I compare my single shot rounds to different revolver rounds, my single shots win every time. I know that I am comparing "rifle" rounds to "revolver" rounds, but I have been told many, many times how the 475 & 500 Linebaugh's will out penetrate various rifle rounds. In all of my testing I still have not seen any straight wall pistol round that will come close to out penetrating my 376 Steyr with a 300 gr. Barnes banded solid or my 416 Barnes with a 400 gr. DGS bullet. I agree & will agree that dead is dead & a lot of what we shoot will kill anything that walks on this earth, but let's be honest too. I am absolutely not trying to start a debate and I am not going to argue with anyone, we have all done that before. I have seen this in all my testing, but reflex264 takes it to a new and different level. He has shot more animals of varying and different sizes testing bullets to back up his findings. I love all hunting handguns from revolvers to single shots and hunt with them both and they both work great, but let's all be honest and admit that there is not a 45 Colt load that will out penetrate a heavy solid in a 450 Marlin either when they are both pushed to "high" for their round velocities.

It does to a degree. Remember that most revolvers -- not specialty pistols chambered in bottleneck rifle cartridges -- cannot produce really high velocity. They will not necessarily produce deeper penetration gong faster as the resistance climbs with higher impact velocity. I believe, as do others to include John Linebaugh, that there is a bit of a dead zone over a certain velocity where gains are so minimal as to not be worth the added recoil and subsequent punishment. Once you pass that threshold, the gains are more prevalent.

The Linebaugh Seminar results are always interesting particularly when the big-bore rifles are pulled. It's worth going back and looking at the results.

Great topic -- more later after I eat my dinner!

Whit, you are right, this is a good topic. Maybe this topic & different members results will help to educate our members that have still yet to make a handgun kill. I hope that nobody tries to turn this into a jacketed vs. cast debate either. Just compare similar diameter rounds of similar/equal weight at different velocities. Example...44 mag w 300 gr vs 444 Marlin 300 gr with same type bullet in same test media.

As it should be -- calm, cool, and devoid of emotion!

Now comparing rifle cartridges to revolver cartridges is a bit like comparing apples to grapes. Whole different dynamic with the velocity potential of the bottleneck cartridges. The reason a revolver cartridge -- take the .475 Linebaugh for example, can penetrate all out of proportion to its paper ballistics has more to do with the bullet chosen to do the task than anything else. A good nose profile with an adequate meplat will penetrate in a deep, straight line. However, there are a multitude of factors governing the way one round may penetrate compared to another. But, when all is said and done, it's all in the bullet. I tested a .475 Linebaugh many years ago against a .470 Nitro Express double rifle belonging to a friend. The 420 grain bullet at a scorching 1,350 at the muzzle handily out penetrated the .470's 500 grain solid in wetpack. Why? Well, for one, the solid bullet's small meplat was causing the .470 bullets to veer off course, not penetrating straight. Had the .470 been equipped with a better bullet with a better nose profile, the tables may have been turned. It's all in the bullet. There is a reason why Weatherbys had such a hit or miss record in the early days. Bullet design and construction of the day couldn't keep up with the velocity potential, so many a "lesser" cartridge were more reliable killers on game. It's all in the bullet -- I know I am beginning to sound like a broken record.

There is only one reason hardcast bullets are usually kept below a certain velocity threshold. The material is not up to the task of real high impact velocities. The nose profile will degrade and that beautiful, deep penetration causing nose can no longer perform its duty like it could at slower speeds. Keep the speeds down and they penetrate like crazy. However, not all hardcast are the same -- too soft and they distort, too hard and they can be brittle. Many factors here to consider. If you want to ramp speeds up, then moving up to a Punch bullet, CEB solid, or a Barnes Buster is the way to go. Then you can take advantage of a little more speed.

Again, good topic.

At the Linebaugh seminar in Jackson, Miss my 416 Rigby shooting 400 grain solids from Federal factory loads penetrated 46" the 475L penetrated 48" with a 420 grain flat point hard cast, the 525 grain WFN from the 500L penetrated 50" as did the 425 grain flat point hard cast from the 500 JRH.

very interesting. My Rigby has never been out penetrated by anything and and no handgun has ever been close. I am curious abuot the test media. Exactly what did you they use and how did they contain it? I would very much like to duplicate their test media. I did this before with wet news print as described by someone that was at one of John's seminars and he said the same thing happend. Someone one pulled out a .416 Rigby and it was the only thing that exited the box. Not trying to start a argument but would love to dulpicate the exact condidtions where the handguns out penetrated the rifles to see why. reflex264

J. Linebaugh soaks his newsprint for 24 hours from what I understand. It is well worth going back and seeing his test results over the years.

I should add that after testing tons of bullets. loads and media types one thing I ahve learned is that as the tensile strength of the media increases kenetic energy quickly becomes the deciding factor.

As Whitworth described the bullet shape making a difference I was working on a bullet based on the findings from shooting tons of different media types that took into consideration bullet abrasion, nose profile, tensile strength and such like. I called the bullet project X and made the mistake of posting it on the levergunlovers forum. 3 months later a company that I am not allowed to name brought a "new bullet" to the market also supposd to do what I busted my doing the testing for. But it achieved its purpose. The meplat allowed it to penetrate straight and it was strong enough to not deform on the 1500lbs steer knuckles.



If it looks familiar and you wonder if it was really my ideal you can look up the date of my post and the date "they" released the "new" bullet.

This should be interesting. I have never tested bullets in water jugs, like many prefer. I too have used mostly "wetpack". Up at the ranch, where trees are plentiful, I have been known to perforate a few ;^)

My feelings on wetpack are that it is really only useful for comparisons on that day, in that material, as wet and as dense as it is. I usually just try to compare bullets shot side by side, on that day. Maybe there is a way to "calibrate" the amount of moisture that is held by the material, but I have not been able to make it so. I have manged to split a Coleman cooler, back when I first started out ;^) Sterilite tubs are cheaper...

Reflex, I am familiar with your testing posts over on the Marlin Forum, and I suspect that you and John L. have the media part of it nailed down pretty well. Looking forward to see what you post up.

Craig

The newspaper in MS was soaked overnight if I remember correctly. I remember setting up the little kiddy pool down at the range for that seminar that JWP is talking about. It was interesting to see all the tests that were done. Some of them were pretty surprising!

I agree with you completely.

Personally I don't put a lot of stock in tests into static media (not live critters) because I've been mislead by the results too many times. There is just too much inconsistency in the media to be worthwhile and since ballistic gelatin so expensive most of us won't ever use that stuff and it too is very temperamental depending on temperature and probably some other factors. I doubt anyone has a tool that measures the water content in the newspaper either. I've seen some guys videos that are shooting media and shoot it multiple times with different guns and then make some claim... doesn't shooting it once change the dynamic? With that said, we have some great bullets these days in both rifles and pistols.

I have always encouraged everyone I have talked with to do their own bullet testing. Bullet testing as with many other comparisons can be swayed to effect the outcome. If you know the gun or bullet maker personally and are friends with them, if you benefit financially from one bullet or gun doing better in the test, or if you "push" a certain bullet or gun, then one is supplied with them free or at a discounted price I just am very skeptical of the results. Point.....comparing round nose bullets to flat nosed bullets of the same configuration. The results will be swayed and not really accurate. In this Linebaugh Siminar, if the 416 Rigby was shooting a 400 gr Barnes Banded Solid or a Woodleigh Hydrostatically Stabilized Solid, the results would be very different and everyone involved already knows this. A test would need to be conducted by impartial parties without an agenda to push that benefits them financially.

Gary,

No doubt you can get some pretty insane claims. What I find useful is side by side shots comparing what hollow points will do. Mostly just trying to see if pushing one designed for a lesser velocity might get the "inside out" effect. I also like to see what the cavity looks like with lead bullet nose profiles.

I once tested a Beartooth RNFP bullet designed for the 45acp that looked reasonably impressive when run at Rowland velocities. This was compared to a cast performance bullet in the same test. The CP was a known quantity, the rnfp was the unknown. I also ran a RN bullet at the same time. I would go only as far as saying that the BT RNFP was worthy of more testing, and something more than discarding based on the nose profile alone, without testing.

Marshall had recommended this bullet for hunting. I just wanted some kind of validation before working up loads. The problem most of us have is the only sources for how a bullet can be expected to perform is recommendation from the maker, or other users (web or print) or some type of self test.

Occasionaly a bullet comes along that you just "know" needs no testing. I had that with my 458 Socom and a 335 Barnes banded solid. One look at that bullet, and knowing Barnes' reputation and I felt zero need to test, other than for load and functioning. Smacked a nice sized Muley with one a few years ago, and it was DRT.

We're all here to share and learn. And while this type of testing or water testing, or tree testing or butcher bones may not be the final word for anything, it's all adds up to a degree. For some of us it is just another part of the joy of shooting.

Craig

I don't know who this is directed at, but if you are testing and evaluating products for a number of different manufacturers, should you pay for them? I think not. Most of us who do this work would make no money at all if we had to pay for the components as well. I have had a number of bullets/ammo/etc. fail and you won't be reading any praise about them from me or anyone else I know in the business. Who is impartial? We all have our favorites. The key is to present your findings as they are. I personally have developed favorites through testing. When you see what works and what doesn't, it makes you lean in a certain direction.

Remember that it took Woodleigh a long time to get into the current technological advances that companies like CEB, North Fork, etc. embraced a while back. Woodleigh is still looked at with fondness by the guy who is nostalgic enough to use round nose solids in his double rifle, because the original Kynoch ammo used round nosed solids, not knowing that Woodleigh now produces more modern bullets. But don't kid yourself into thinking that most guys shooting solids out of their big-game hunting rifles have accepted the flat-nosed solid. Many are still stuck on nostalgia. Those round nosed solids are notorious for not tracking straight and frankly many flat nosed profiles will handily beat them in a penetration contest.

The current trend is towards flat-nosed profiles for rifles. Do you know where they got that idea? From the handgun hunters who have been using them and have known how effective they are for decades. Elmer Keith knew.......it's about time the rifle guys get with the program!

My only agenda when testing is to present to the skeptic proof that handguns are effective tools on even the largest game in the right hands. For that I am guilty.

Hahahahahaha! Don't read too much into that. That was kinda funny. That was directed to any and everybody that reads results from Hornady, Nosler, Speer, and the like. The same goes for gun companies. If they push it, the results will always be in there favor. I seriously doubt that Speer would ever report that Hornady bullets shoot faster and perform better. That just makes good common sense.

One more thought. If you are truly interested in bullet testing, this thread on AR is absolutely worth its weight in gold. It's a long read, but the information is valuable. I know the gentleman who performed all of this testing and he did it independently. His results on wetpack-type material have been confirmed on numerous large wild bovines as well as pachyderms. When Michael heads to Africa to test bullets, he shoots multiple buffalo. I think he is in the triple digits as far as Cape buffalo are concerned. He helped design CEB's nose profiles and he helped North Fork adjust theirs. He had many a long conversation with handgun hunters when he started designing.

http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4711043/m/2861098911

How should they present their own products? In a bad light? No job security in that! Of course the manufacturer is going to talk up their product over the competition, it's only logical. It's what they get paid to do.

It surely read that way.

Media unless you have a way to keep it consistent is pretty much guess work. One of the things I have strived to do is make something consistent and repeatable. This means taking known performing loads and adjusting media until you see a result that can be equated to a critter. In the case of water buffalo they are very tough. As they age they get tougher. The one I killed with the .450 had skin so thick you coulsn't stab through it with a bayonet. If you are trying to duplicate that kill then you need to simulate the skin and so forth. Nothing say whoa! to a bullet like a 7" steer knuckle. More later. reflex264

I will say this. I know of a certain professional hunter that uses muzzleloader's. Ten years ago, Knight rifles were the best and now it is TC. Is he lying now or then, because they both can't be true

That is why I say everyone should do there own testing. I know that companies and salesmen will undoubtedly hype their products, I just hope that a novice handgun hunter can see through some of the "hype" and find out some real life results for themselves.

Careful Whit, pointing members to AR. If we drag any AR folks back over here, were soon gonna have members banned for posting that the the 45-70 Contender is every bit the Cape Buff round as the 458 Win Mag Encore........;^)

Craig

Yeah, and if the .45/70 is incapable, a .500 Linebaugh is like a BB gun!

I can tell you from a professional sales perspective it is never a good idea to run down the competition to sell your own product. It either stands on its own merit or it does not...

AMEN!!!!!!

using the same style bullets the rifles will always out penetrate the pistols unless using an antiquated hardcast which do not benefit from velocity. this however, is very very different from saying velocity does not matter. it does and it makes a difference if one uses a bullet worthy of such velocity. i don't, nor have i ever thought paper testing was worth the paper it was shot into or the paper it was printed on. i've seen bullets that are supposed to out penetrate an expandable shot throught the same animal, the same area, same bone structure not outpenetrate it. though the paper testing shows different. i'll taket he animal test everytime.

That's not in dispute here. Lots of guys are still using round nosed solids, and they leave a lot to be desired.

I agree completely. The only thing a test media of any kind will do is provide a comparison of the various loads included in that test. You cannot take information from paper or water or pine trees or whatever and apply that to tissue and bone. My favorite test media is water, by the gallon in jugs. It is always the same. It provides a comparison of various bullets and their penetration or expansion (if applicable) or both, relative to one another, but nothing more.

The round nose 416 solids were out penetrated by the handgun rounds, the flat point 416 solids were not out penetrated by the handguns rounds.

I agree that theres too many still usig round nose solids. Horrible bullets. Just a wastin powerf

When I bought my 10" FA`s 475 a few years ago I took my 416 Rigby loaded Federals Trophy Bonded solid and my new 475 Linebaugh loaded with Buffalo Bores 440gr EWN-GC ammo listed at 1325fps to a friends place in Pennsylvania. I assume my single action velocity was close to the spec. speed because of the 10" barrel on my Freedom. We tied up bundles of dry newspaper until they reached 60 inches or five feet. Shot one round of the 416 TBBC solid into the top half of the bundle with velocity in the 2350fps range and then shot the 440gr EWN-GC bullet from the LB into the bottom half of the paper. The 416 out penetrated the 475. What did I do wrong???????

Thats using the same stack of paper. Youre not supposed to do that. Youre also supposed to have at least a 25% variance from high to low performance dontcha know!! See itnonly works if ya get 60" of penetration one time and then when ya use a different stack of paper ya get 40". Dontcha know that james.

Where is that sarcasm smiley?

I think that this is a great forum topic because it makes us talk about "real life" bullet testing, meaning actually testing bullets on flesh, not paper & phone books. I really hope novice handgun hunters don't actually take paper test results as the "gospel" & believe they will get the same results on game. My advice is talk to the guys & girls who actually shoot real life breathing, bleeding animals with these bullets, not just recycled trees. For example, if someone was going to Africa to hunt a Cape Buffalo, talk to the men on this site that have done it, I will promise you they will tell you truthfully what works and what doesn't. Talk to the men and women that spend their own hard earned money on these hunts. I know many of these hunters and have talked to them personally and they will tell you not to put faith in testing bullets in paper.

H

A proper flat point solid will out penetrate the handgun rounds. Many rounds nose solids will not, since they yaw and or tumble.

Several months ago I started putting a fall/winter hunt together for a Nilgai bull. I was planning on using my Competitor single shot in 376 Steyr with Hornady DGX 300 gr. bullets. All of the press & paper testing reviews & results were "off the chain" great/positive. Luckily, I didn't just go with those results. Like many have said before, "if you are getting paid to say how great the bullet is & how well it works" why would you admit to the hunting community it's short comings. I talked to one of our fellow handgunhunt.com members from Texas. I knew that if anyone knew he would. He and his family are a wealth of real life hunting "bullet performance" knowledge. He informed me without bias or prejudice that this bullet does not live up to the hype. This gentleman's son had used this same Hornady .375 DGX bullet on an Oryx. The bullet fell apart & miserably failed to live up to the hype. I am very glad for his "real life" review of this bullet. I will be using a 400 gr 475 bullet in my Competitor 475/350 Rem Mag Competitor single shot instead. I discussed this bullet with the one man who has actually tested this bullet - reflex264 & I feel very confident in this bullet & load choice.

David, did you go look at the link I posted? It sounds like you didn't. Again, media testing correlated quite nicely with flesh testing and Michael has killed more buff than anyone I know excluding one person (who is well into the triple digits). I am not saying that wet pack testing is the end-all be-all, just that when you have a bunch of different calibers and bullets to test, it is not only not feasible but not economical to use a bovine every time. Besides results vary animal to animal as well. You would have to have very deep pockets to come up with a meaningful way of testing bullets and loads only on flesh.

ONCE AGAIN, no one is disputing that a properly loaded rifle can out penetrate a handgun. THIS IS A HANDGUN HUNTING FORUM LAST I CHECKED so why are we fixating on rifles??????? And the terminal ballistics of a long barreled single-shot chambered in a bottleneck rifle cartridge has little relevance to the terminal ballistics of a firearm that can only achieve 1,500 fps on the high side.

Just because of the industry I work in I am in contact with many hunters -- many African hunters -- most are not even remotely fixated on the bullets they use in fact they are disengaged completely. They don't care and don't think it is that important (I'm talking rifle hunters here). You would be amazed at how little they think about the stuff we debate on a regular basis and frankly how little they know.

Dry newspaper. Lead bullet versus a tough bonded bullet. Come on James, the outcome of that one should have been obvious. Shoot 2x4s and you'll see the same trend.