Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Africa Bullet Failure

That would have been a fun and informative mining excavation.

Gunner

Settle in tight and drill em ET, ole Gibbs wont bite near as hard as T-Rex.

Gunner

Sounds to me like they "way over-penetrate"

I got a letter from Oregon stating just that.

Gunner

There'd be scattered .505 hulls all around before T. Rex took a bite out of my ___...!

I'd worry about the details later...

DF

And 'T' wont take just 'a bite' outta yo azz.

Gunner

'Fraid you right, Gunner

Ole T's one big, bad lizard.

DF

Sharpsguy.........

What you say above is absolutely NOT TRUE, not in the least, not a word, I have NEVER EVER NOT ONCE CHANGED OR COOKED THE BOOKS as you say...... I am sorry, I do not wish to offend, but this is 100% Incorrect on all counts. What we did with your loads and data is still right there on the Terminal Performance thread unchanged, unedited and as it was when it was posted. Anyone anywhere can go check for themselves. I have no idea what pages that might be on, but it is reported correctly and as it was.... END OF STORY....... I do not recall depth of penetration and other details, as that was a couple of years ago, but I do have that data in the files. WHile I am currently in Pretoria South Africa and just after a hunt, I have that data with me, and here it is as recorded in Feb Of 2010.......

2/3/10 470 Cast FN 1270/1235 1241/1200 22 yds 23" & 24" 474/467 Brown 1885-SharpsBill Black Powder Load
#1 Dead Straght-#2 Lost stability at very end Sideways
2/3/10 511 Paper 1190/1172 1166/1147 22 yds 24" & 34" 509/511 Brown 1885-Sharps-Bill Black Powder Load
#1 Bullet 24" expanded!
2/3/10 520 Cast RN 1252/1212/ 1222/1187 22 yds 18" & 31" 522/517 Brown 1885-SharpsBill Black Powder
#1 Bullet 18"Expand/bent
2/3/10 540 Cast FN 1249/1260 1223/1230 22 yds 19" & 30" 534/533 Brown 1885-Sharps Bill Black Powder
#1 19" Nose Deformed Found Sideways

2/10/10 540 Cast FN 1254 1197 48 yds 39" & 15" 528-522 X1 Dead Straight 39"
X1-Lot's of expansion-limited penetration to 15"
2/10/10 520 Cast RN 1276 1212 48 yds 36" & 35" 521 X2-Straight

2/10/10 511 Paper 1180 1136 48 yds 36" & 35" 510-512 X1-36"Straight Veer Sideways at 38"
X1-35" Straight-Veer Sideways 37" 1" off course
2/10/10 470 Cast FN 1247 1184 48 yds 16" & 17" 472-467 X1-Sideways bent
X1-straight 17"


As YOU CAN SEE... Your 511 Paper Patched bullets went STRAIGHT to 36 and 35 " at which point they veered off course and were sideways at 38 Inches....... You mentioned 37-39 total, which is 38 in my book, but I only look SERIOUSLY at STABLE STRAIGHT LINE PENETRATION. There was NO DOWNGRADE at all, nothing cooked, nothing construed.... There is a difference between Straight Line Penetration, and total penetration IF THE BULLET VEERS OFF COURSE. This is recorded data and I could care less if it is better than one or another. I take great offense to being accused of cooking anything.

THere are many bullets that will out penetrate the best of your cast loads my friend, and they are not designed by me.. A good example is the .458 325 gr Barnes Socom Flat Nose Solid... It drives to 50 inches dead straight, I don't have anything to do with Barnes, and in fact I have no $$ interest in CEB or North Fork either, I am not an employee, I own no stock, and I receive no monies at all from any bullet company anywhere, and I have no reason to cook anything........

I am somewhat taken aback by your statements here, I bent over backwards to give you an honest test and do it correctly, and now to be accused of this, well that is overboard in my opinion...............

Michael

Michael 458--It is damned sure true. The first data that went up showed the Govt at 34 and 35 inches for the two tests, and the paper patched bullet at 37 and 39 inches. We were both surprised that the 540 FN did NOT give the good penetration we expected it to, rather it veered of and/or tumbled. It never gave anything near 39 inches of penetration as your current post here indicates. I remember being both proud and disappointed at the results. Proud because at the time, those penetration distances were close to the top, and better than many of the modern rifles. I was disappointed because the Sharps loaded with lead bullets and black powder was oh, so close to cracking the 40 inch plateau but didn't do it. I stand by this. Maybe you need to review your data, as mine is somewhere inside a hard drive I can't access or in cyberspace. Now if you or anyone wants to pay to have that hard drive forensically analyzed, I have it and it is available for testing. Maybe it is an oversight on your part. I'll spot you that. But the paper patch data originally showed 37 and 39 inches. Until we look inside that old hard drive, we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

Bill: I sure hate to see two great guys get into a pissing match over what I see is both of you saying the same thing more or less. Above (in bold) you state the PP bullets showed up to 39" of TOTAL penetration which Michael substatiated below, the only difference it appears the last couple of inches the bullet started to veer, even though it made it to 39".



Looks like it to me anyway and I think we can ALL agree 39" is plenty for just about anthing that walks...

Sharpsguy

All the original first tests were posted on page 23 of the terminal thread. The first tests were conducted at 22 yards. From comparisons in the Posted photos and data tags, it is spot on with the data recorded on the data sheet.

http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4711043/m/2861098911/p/23

On page 29 I had finished the same test, only at 48 yard impact, in which most all the bullets did much better because of the lesser impact velocity, and less bullet upset.

http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4711043/m/2861098911/p/29

I have your 540 FN at 39 inches dead straight penetration because at 48 yards one of them did not upset at all... This shows in the photo posted... And also in MY DATA RECORDED..... All others are the same as my data that I posted here. I keep pretty good records, and I can assure you that nothing was changed for any reason... Why would I?

Go to these pages, review them, they have not been edited or changed since the day they were posted, so I really don't see what the issue is?

To accuse me of "Cooking the books" is way overboard, I take great exception to that, and it is NOT TRUE, regardless of what you think you have in your mind or what you think. I tell you now, point blank in your words.... "IT DAMN SURE AIN"T TRUE", and what you see is what you get.

I keep data backed up on 3 different computers, one being this laptop I am on currently in Pretoria South Africa, it is also kept on three different LARGE external drives, and all kept on one small thumb drive as well, updated each time there is a change in anything within the folder.

It was easy to go back to the posts on page 23 and then again on page 29 of the Terminal Performance thread on AR, due to my record keeping, and the dates that I recorded the data. Other than that, I would have had no idea what page that would have been on.

You can stand on anything you want, the data is what it is, has not been altered or changed, no posts have been removed or changed for any reason anywhere. Why would I do this to begin with Sharps? Why would you think I would care if your cast bullet did 38 or 39 or 50 inches for that matter?

Michael

Michael 458-- Of course the data presently posted on Accurate Reloading confirms what you are saying. That is the data that is CURRENTLY in place. The data that was posted ORIGINALLY is what I am hanging my hat on.

When I went back to the site, after I got my new computer, I noticed both that the data had been changed, and the format and photos were slightly different. Same photos, but the lay out differed slightly. That is a very professional presentation, and I figured that you changed the layout a bit for aesthetic reasons.

I'm sure the data you have on your hard drives and that you have backed up reflects the current data on AR. If you have changed it for AR, I feel that you have changed it for your reference as well.

I know that I have data in my old hard drive that IS DIFFERENT than that currently on AR. Why it is different is beyond me.

Another popcorn moment...??

DF

What I'm learning from this thread is modern rifles, be it bolt or doubles, firing mono metal solids and softs with smokeless powder don't do a hell of a lot better than the Sharps rifles powered by black powder and lead bullets, and in many cases can't match 140 year old technology.

I reckon that's the reason the monos and bonded lead projectiles were invented, millions of dollars spent on research and development, ten of thousands of man hours on testing and shooting something that in a few cases bests 140 year old technology.

Basic cup and core bullets are junk on heavy game and have been for decades.

Also ANY scoped heavy game bolt rifle or double will be useless to try and compete with a Sharps on long range kill shots, anyone wanna try for an elk, sable, zebra, or kudu at 500 yards with their double or scoped 460 WM?

Didnt think so, and this coming from someone that owns three double rifles.

Near or far, the old Sharps rifles will be hard to best on accurate killing power and range.

Gunner

I wouldn't make that drastic a statement. The evolution took us to smaller bullets that didn't pound us as the need for big boomers were not needed. Suddenly long range shooting without a big looping curve was the rage. Pointed bullets proved superior in this game compared to the the big heavy bullets. Guns have always and probably will always first be about killing humans sadly. Useing the new military guns and technolgy hunters saw an advantage they were looking for and got on board. Then we found if we pushed them faster yet it alleviated even more drop. This put the cup and core to a test and the evolution continues.
Nothing is static when it comes to technology in firearms design or ammunition. You can get off at any level you want to and take advantage of whatever era suits your fancy or mindset.
At every level of the evolutionary change in men useing weapons for food or protection they have worked. But for the most part present day usually trumps all because it had a history of what worked and what didn't to arrive at its present form.

Gunner: Everything you say is spot on but the above pcitures speak volumes.

I view the Sharps and other BP/Hardcast bullets sort of as "super arrows" in that they penetrate very efficiently just as long as heavy thick bones are not encountered (Michael's test clearly show that at the links). What that means to me is that on say a lion, I can shoot him just about the same way I would with a soft point, BUT fully expecting the cat to react just like it had been shot with an arrow. In contrast, whack him with a smaller caliber expanding bullet, say a 3752500 and the reaction and subsequent death will come much faster. There's just no substitute for high velocity given all things being equal.

On a buffalo, which are much less succeptible to velocity, I would still prefer to drive a bullet as fast as I could provided it was up to the task as there are reams of evidence published that when buffalo, when hit with say a 400gr bullet (soft)@ 2200 fps and one at 2600 plus, the faster bullet has a much more telling effect on them. Ross Seyfried had a tutorial on this years ago and came to the conclusion that a 416 Weatherby with a 400gr bullet like the TSX was the most impressive killer of buffalo he'd ever seen. The combination of a good soft point that holds together AND penetrates is in my view the way to a better kill. Sure a hard cast out of your Sharps will penetrate more than a SOFT, but I can guarantee you had that Gibbs been shooting a solid it would outpenetrate that 45/70 hardcast by a factor of at least two.

For elephant, there's just no way I would ever entertain a frontal brain shot on an elephant or a side brain for that matter with a lead bullet.

There is a reason as to why the African hunters of the 19th Century, who had ample access to 45 cal and 500 BPE rifles with bullets from 500 grain on up, had to go to those monstrous Eight and Four Bore rifles in order to safely and consistently stop/kill pachyderms effectively. Then when smokelss express rifles came on the scene those BP rifles fell out of use (in addition to the better upkeep, fouling etc).

Too bad you don't have access to a penetration box like Michael does, because I would bet the farm that your 500NE loaded with a CEB solid would run penetration circles against any and all bullets that your Sharps would use.

Sharpsguy clearly and convingly demonstrated the abilities of his Sharp rifles to take game at ranges past 500 yards, but again test have been done with NE cartridges and ladder sights out to similar ranges. I do LOVE my Sharps and have complete confidence in it, but up against a lion, buffalo and elephant up close, I'll take my double every time. I'll add one more thing. You're in Africa hunting Sable (3750 trophy fee) and there he is at 300 yards, perfectly lined up. Chip shot for Sharpsguy but for me and many others, I'll take my scoped 300 with 180gr TSXs every day. Cheers, jorge

I had around a 2000/2200 lb Beef Master bull break a leg and had to put him down, took a chainsaw cut a hole in his neck and hoisted him up with the tractor loader.

Shot him at 25 yards in the shoulders with the 300 gr btsp's from sierra and hornady as well as a 270 gr hornady sp from my 375 H&H, all bullets shed their sores and disintegrated..........that spells JUNK to me.

Shot him in the shoulders on the other side with a 500 gr hornady rnsp from my 458WM at 25 yards, bullet vel was 2150 fps, bullet squirted core and came a part, again..............JUNK.

C&C bullets on heavy game are JUNK

I will lay good money on were I to shoot the same bull in the shoulders with my 45-70 Sharps with a 520 gr gov bullet at 25 yards it wouldn't come apart and would most likely give complete penetration, certainly out penetrating C&C [so called] heavy game bullets.

Gunner

I hear what your saying Jorge, I shoot the mono solids in both heavy doubles of mine, they do penetrate, no doubt, but, spending 25/50K on a double or 10K on a fine magazine rifle, and 2/3/4 bucks per bullet should give a man a more commanding lead than they do over the Sharps rifles, and, if a man had to, he can reload at camp and hunt with bullets he hand loaded the night before, another advantage for the Sharps.

I would have no qualms about facing a cape buff or kodiak bear with my Shiloh 45-70 loaded with 520 gr gov bullets.

Given a proper rest, I would also take on an elk at 500 yards with the barrel sights, watching the 500 yard ram swing at Bill's place after catching one of those heavy bullets was a real eye opener, my 45-120 nearly slapped the ram offa the chains.

After all, the 520 gr gov bullet was developed to shoot through horses and kill the indians sneaking by on the other side.

I'm saying in the full 360 degrees of comparison the old Sharps is lacking very little compared to rifles that cost as much as some folks houses.

Gunner

The bullets you cited are indeed subpar the Sierra is GARBAGE, but again you are comapring apples and oranges. Try the same thing with a TSX, North Fork or of course a CEB Non-Con or a Swift A-Frame and they will hold together and penetrate sufficiently. that 45/70 520gr Govt bullet is for all practical purposes a solid and even then Michael's test showed severe deformation at close ranges. I've only shot two Capes but I can guarantee you the 400 gr Swift A Frame soft is light years ahead of any lead pill when it comes to putting heavy game down. If I want penetration without fear of deformation then I'll use a solid.

THIS WON'T FALL APART:

Agree with everything you say Gunner.