Bullet Penetration Question
- Thread starter Demonical
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
You are correct, I missed that and I am somewhat chagrinned that I didn't catch it. But the fact remains that the IL's have a strong tendency to failure at impact velocities above 2500 fps, whether the design was considered an improvement or not. I'm not sure how you did not recognize this given the degree of expansion of the bullet in your gel penetration pic.
Boomer I'm still confused where you get this 2,500 fps number. You admittedly said it applied to 50-60 year old technology which as you've recently discovered, the Interlock is not. Is this a number you just pulled out of your hat or is there some basis to it???? I'm a litle more inclined to believe the engineers at Hornady and the results I've seen firsat hand but am always open to being educated. I know you learned something today...maybe it's my turn.......
- Location
- St. Joe's Island, Ont
I'm seeing three guys having a pissing match in here.
Apparently your all set in your ways so why sit here and insult each other for another three pages when you can move on and be productive.
About as usefull as arguing with your dog..........
Apparently your all set in your ways so why sit here and insult each other for another three pages when you can move on and be productive.
About as usefull as arguing with your dog..........
So are these bullets failures in your opinion too?
You woudl have to say where they were recovered from? Did they come out of the offside shoulder? Or was it the near side lung?
I don't see a pissing match at all......there's been a good sharing of facts and information. There's nothing wrong with a passionate debate on the internet where there's no name calling and posters stay to facts and first hand experience. If questioning someone on something they present as a fact is a pissing match.....you never did much debating in high school.
Questioning the status quo is the key to knowledge!
Questioning the status quo is the key to knowledge!
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
The 2500 fps number is not arbitrary, and it is not confined to any particular brand name, or technology. The number is one that has been determined from the examination of bullets that have been recovered from both artificial media and game, using both my own observations as well as the observations of others. As a result I have been able to determine the velocity at which a number of bullets have attained the optimum amount of expansion and the velocity at which a number of bullets have failed. Does this mean that there would be no failure with impacts below 2500 fps? Probably not, but it gives an individual a realistic index to use when he is attempting to choose a particular bullet and load for a particular task.
Under most conditions I would consider the bullets pictured as having failed, because they have expanded right to the bottom of the shank. There was a time I would of thought that was good bullet performance simply because the bullets didn't sprue their cores. But now I am inclined to believe that expansion to the bottom of the shank results in an erratic and unstable penetration. It seems that there needs to be some shank length that is not affected by expansion. How much length I haven't been able to determine, but I would think it would be at least one caliber length, but it may prove to be more. I did say under most conditions, but there are exceptions. The exception would be in cases where a light framed animal with a highly advanced nervous system is susceptible to shock from a high velocity bullet. If those bullets performed as pictured in that case I would consider it good performance given those circumstances.
Under most conditions I would consider the bullets pictured as having failed, because they have expanded right to the bottom of the shank. There was a time I would of thought that was good bullet performance simply because the bullets didn't sprue their cores. But now I am inclined to believe that expansion to the bottom of the shank results in an erratic and unstable penetration. It seems that there needs to be some shank length that is not affected by expansion. How much length I haven't been able to determine, but I would think it would be at least one caliber length, but it may prove to be more. I did say under most conditions, but there are exceptions. The exception would be in cases where a light framed animal with a highly advanced nervous system is susceptible to shock from a high velocity bullet. If those bullets performed as pictured in that case I would consider it good performance given those circumstances.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
Cats!
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
In other words you made it up.
It certainly proves that you only have room for your own opinion. I think I'm pretty much done with this.
Something the British figured out 100 years ago was that for proper performance of bullets on large heavy animals, optimum velocity was between 2150 to 2400 fps, using bullets of high sectional density.
I believe if people simply follow the old British standard, the there won't be complaints about bullets blowing up!
- Location
- St. Joe's Island, Ont
Alrighty then....... sorry bout that. Didn't mean to interupt you guys.
Have fun Sheephunter.
Something the British figured out 100 years ago was that for proper performance of bullets on large heavy animals, optimum velocity was between 2150 to 2400 fps, using bullets of high sectional density.
I believe if people simply follow the old British standard, the there won't be complaints about bullets blowing up!
Hi Demonical
You can't compare the bullets of lets call it the British Empire time. They were definately keeping velocities within the limits of bullet design but still had many failures especially with their solids. You would be doing yourself an injustice to remain with those velocities. Here is a link to some real interesting bullet test.
http://seahook.com/bestbullet.jpg
The Hornady interlock bullet is basically a cup and core bullet with a very small locking ring that brings it a small fraction closer to an actual bonded bullet but there is still a big gap. The link is very interesting and gives you a good chance to see the difference between the new high end bullets and how some of the custom bullets that are supposed to be good have real failures whether it is at the bottom velocity end or at the top end.
None of the bullets tested tumbled
Take care,
Dave
Thanks for understanding!
470 Mbogo said:
Dave I load my .416RM to ~2375 fps with a 400gr RN Hornady. I also have 400gr Nosler Partitions that will be my "go-to" bullet in this gun. I will likely load it to the same specs: 76.5grs RL-15.
In my .458 Lott I load the 500gr Hornady RN IB: 75.5grs H-335 gets me ~2235 fps. Some of my early loads with the Lott I had 2350 fps but that was too hot with H-335. Word is that IMR-4320 is the best powder for .458 Lott.
I have solids for both those guns. 400gr Hornady for the .416 and 500gr Hornady for the Lott.
With my .416 I killed a bull moose at about 225 yards 2 years ago. Center-punched him with both shots, so the trajectory is good enough.
Basically I cannot see any need or benefit from increasing the MV of either of these excellent cartridges.
Dollar-for-dollar there is no bullet on the market that is going to be any better then these IMHO.
- Location
- St. Joe's Island, Ont
You pretty much have the perfect loads for the cartridges you have. I guess I should have been a little more specific with calibers and velocities. I'm thinking in the medium bore calibers such as the 375"s hot 338's and the 416's such as the Rigby and Weatherby that can take advantage of the extra velocity. The better bullet construction also makes the 460 Weatherby the cartridge it was designed to be. I hope you had a chance to look at the link, it is very interesting.
I shot a 450 Ackley for quite a while and WW748 was an excellent powder for it. It is so close to your Lott it would be worth a try. It's temperature stable also.
Take care,
Dave
- Status
