Closer to .303 Savage ammo

I missed a box of .303 Savage ammo on an auction but I am not so sure I wanted it $75 worth anyway.
 
 I did recently get 200 primed Winchester .303 Savage
 cases. My plan is to load up 40 or so with a good factory equivalent load. I may sell the remainder.
 
 What bullet weight would you recommend? I understand the original .303 Savage came in 190 grain JSP. What would be a good load for this bullet?
 
 What is the best powder for the .303 Savage 190 grain bullet? I'd like close to factory power and decent accuracy and do not have time for experimentation.
 
 Beside which I only plan to shoot 5 or 6 rounds then clean and store the gun.
 
 Reload tips appreciated.
 
 Thanks, Deputy Norm

Deputy_Norm,
 
 If I was you, which I ain't, I'd keep 100 cases to use with different loads in this rifle and I'd keep the other 100 on the shelf ready for the next .303 Model 99 that you buy. Since the bug has bitten you, you won't be able to resist the next one that comes along, will you?
 
 Any of the bullets made for the 30-30 work fine in the .303 Savage, I particularly like the 170 grain Remington RNCL, but have also had good success with the 130 grain Hornady Spire Point. I haven't seen any of the 190 grain Winchester Silvertip bullets available as components for at least 20 years. If you find them, they'd probably be too valuable to shoot. I believe that Remington loaded a 180 grain RNCL bullet in the .303 Savage, but I don't know if it was the same bullet as their "standard" 180 grain RNCL that they load (or loaded) in the 300 Savage, 308, and 30-06. It wouldn't seem likely because of the lower velocity of the .303 Savage, but one never knows. Well, perhaps someone out there knows, I know that I don't.
 
 I believe that the older Lyman reloading manuals, pre-1970, had a page on the .303 Savage and Ken Waters wrote a Pet Loads article back in that era, but I don't know of anything that is a more recent vintage.
 
 Sincerely,
 
 Bearrr264

I was at a shop the other day and they had a box of winchester 190grn cartridges on the shelf. This is the later white and orange box. Are you telling me that box of ammo is going for $75 on the auctions, wow.
 
 
 The box was marked $25, maybe could get it for $22-23 since I know the guy but I don't have a 303 and won't ever get one.
 
 Good luck, TX

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>Beside which I only plan to shoot 5 or 6 rounds then clean and store the gun.<hr></blockquote>
 If you only plan to shoot it five or six times, I don't know why you'd even bother to go to the trouble of buying loading equipment, etc.
 
 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr>Are you telling me that box of ammo is going for $75 on the auctions, wow.<hr></blockquote>
 He was bidding on some ancient UMC stuff, AA #2830169 that was more along the lines of collector ammo. The Winchester X3032 190 grain Silvertip is still going for $25 a box on average. Here's what he bid on:
 [Linked Image]

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>I believe that the older Lyman reloading manuals, pre-1970, had a page on the .303 Savage and Ken Waters wrote a Pet Loads article back in that era, but I don't know of anything that is a more recent vintage.<hr></blockquote>
 The Lyman 46th edition from 1984 has load data for the .303 Savage.
 
 While Winchester loaded it with the 190 grain slug for many years, Remington always loaded the .303 Savage with a 180 grain RN. Both Hornady and Sierra offer a bullet like this and that'll be the closest thing to a factory duplication load if you choose to use jacketed bullets.

Norm,
 
 If you planed on shooting that $75 box of shells it's just as well that you did not get it. That was a sealed box made before 1911. It's likely that the shells would not fire, if they did the cases are probably bittle and the opened box would have lost most of its value. Leave the early stuff to the collectors. Opening a sealed box is like D&T'ing a pre war rifle. If you were only going to fire 5 or 6 rounds, a $25 box of fresh rounds seems the way to go.
 
 Like I have a lot of room to talk,
 Rick.....

Rick99,
 
 Trust me Rick. I'm smarter than that. I wanted the box to keep with the rifle.
 
 Norm

Robert,
 
 I have the loading equipment. I just need the dies and, possibly a shell holder plus the powder and bullets. Who knows I may find shooting the old gun more fun than I can stand and shoot it all the time.
 
 Also I was thinking having a set of dies with the rifle might be a plus too.
 
 Besides I got to spend money on something. Darned stuff keeps coming in so quick that I have to burn a bale at the end of the month to clear out space for the new stuff.
 
 Norm

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>I have the loading equipment. I just need the dies and, possibly a shell holder plus the powder and bullets.<hr></blockquote>
 That's what I mean. The dies will set you back at least $20 (if you buy Lee, other brands will go higher), bullets will run somewhere around $15 for 100 count, and powder will cost you in the neighborhood of $17 for a pound (shell holders are included with Lee dies, but have to be purchased with others). You're looking at spending around $52 just to shoot your gun five or six times, or around $10 per shot. It might be better if you just sought out some factory loads.

Deputy Norm: Consider using a cast bullet. Easy on the bore, a variety of load levels can be had. The RCBS 180 FNGC mold actually casts bullets with wheel weights and a bit of tin that weigh in at 187-193 depending on mix. If you aren't into casting your own, they are available commercially from an outfit named Dry Creek. I'm pushing oven hardened bullets in excess of 1900 from my 30WCF 99. besto

I am not sure of this, the experts on this forum will know for sure, but my impression is that the early .303s might have been .310-.311 groove diameter and the later ones the standard .308. I don't know when this changed. Might make a difference what diameter bullets you use.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>The RCBS 180 FNGC mold actually casts bullets with wheel weights and a bit of tin that weigh in at 187-193 depending on mix. If you aren't into casting your own, they are available commercially from an outfit named Dry Creek.<hr></blockquote>
 Why use a flat nose bullet in a gun that doesn't require it? At any rate, for many years, the cast bullet of choice has been the Lyman #311334 and is available from Penny's Hand & Machine Casting of Topanga, California. The nominal weight is 187 grains and comes the closest to duplicating the Winchester factory load with IMR 4227.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>I am not sure of this, the experts on this forum will know for sure, but my impression is that the early .303s might have been .310-.311 groove diameter and the later ones the standard .308.<hr></blockquote>
 This is totally false. The manufacturing tolerances of the day, and the fact that there was no SAAMI, allowed for bore sizes in ALL .30 caliber rifles to vary over a range of about 0.306" to 0.311". There's a fair chance of finding older .30-30, .30 Remington, .30-40 Krag, .30-06, etc. bores of a 0.311" diameter.

Deputy_Norm,
 
 That was a nice box. I was temped myself.
 
 Rick....

Robert: I use a flat nose because I'm convinced flat nosed cast lead bullets are more effective as a hunting bullet than a cast spitzer style. stocker

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>Robert: I use a flat nose because I'm convinced flat nosed cast lead bullets are more effective as a hunting bullet than a cast spitzer style. stocker<hr></blockquote>
 stocker: they're not. Robert

Robert: I said I was convinced.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>Robert: I said I was convinced.<hr></blockquote>
 stocker: based on what? Surely you won't try and say better expansion, will you? When cast out of linotype or Lyman #2 alloy, bullets behave more or less like solids. A .30 caliber hole is a .30 caliber hole. Don't give me any of that "brush bucking" bull either. The main concern is then to find a bullet that offers the correct crimp ring for the optimum overall length and seating. I don't see any advantage gained using a flat nose bullet in this application (Model 1899/99) at all.
 
 I kind of like this little number from NEI:
 
 [Linked Image]

Robert: Well since you asked here's my take on it after using flat noses for an awful lot of years and quite a big pile of game. First I believe a flat nose bullet penetrates inside an animal on a straighter line than a pointed bullet and is less likely to be deflected by bone. So when I shoot at an angle through an animal with the intent of getting to the opposite shoulder bone it does. This concurs with the thoughts of a lot of the big bore shooters who frequent the dangerous game haunts of Africa and who knows where else. Some of John Buhmiller's solids were flat and some were dished inwards to encourage that straight line travel. Secondly I am not particularly concerned about expansion as my hunting loads are hard cast and oven hardened. Third I 'm not shooting at particularly long range with these bullets so don't need any ballistic advantage the spitzer might offer. Fourth, when shooting hard cast a larger frontal area is one of the best ways to transmit bullet energy to the target. So I guess you could say I'm basing my preference on experience using it. It works for me and I am not going to try to change your mind if you believe otherwise. Perhaps your choice works just as well for you. I've used a variety of Lyman moulds over the years and am currently using an RCBS. From three different 30 cal cartridges and several rifles they have been extremely accurate. Meets my needs. besto.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>First I believe a flat nose bullet penetrates inside an animal on a straighter line than a pointed bullet and is less likely to be deflected by bone. So when I shoot at an angle through an animal with the intent of getting to the opposite shoulder bone it does. This concurs with the thoughts of a lot of the big bore shooters who frequent the dangerous game haunts of Africa and who knows where else.<hr></blockquote>
 stocker: totally untrue. Don Zutz debunked this myth a few years before his death. Flat nose bullets deflect just as much as if not more than a spitzer of the same weight fired at the same velocity. However, a flat nosed bullet will most likely expend more energy upon impact than a spitzer, and therefore penetrate less. The only practical use of a flat nose slug is in a tubular magazine which precludes the Model 99. The "spitzers are bad, flat points are good" BS originated in WWI after a representative of Rigby was struck by a stray 8x57mm bullet fired from a great distance. By the time he was hit, the bullet had nearly petered out and didn't penetrate. Thus, a myth was born. Just more limey nonsense.

Robert: My last post on the subject: it's getting boring. If I recall the Zutz tests he was shooting through dowels or sticks. We try to avoid wasting bullets on wood. These bullets will pass completely through a moose or black bear so whether penetration is less than a spitzer seems immmaterial to me. The flat point does expend more of its energy on the way (good) and does make a larger permanent wound channel (good).A pointed non expanding tends to displace a lot of tissue while a flat point tears it. Let's say it's all in my mind and leave it at that- but it's my mind and my opinions are formed on extensive use of them. cheers

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>If I recall the Zutz tests he was shooting through dowels or sticks.<hr></blockquote>
 stocker: Uh, no he wasn't. Zutz pointed out that this BS of deflection was nothing but a myth. In order to avoid deflection, you need to avoid shooting through sticks and crap in the first place. In order to do that an accurate rifle is needed, not a flat or round bullet.
 
 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr>The flat point does expend more of its energy on the way (good) and does make a larger permanent wound channel (good).<hr></blockquote>
 Uh, no it won't make a larger wound channel. In this particular case since it's behaving like a solid, a .30 caliber hole is a .30 caliber hole.

Where can the article by Zutz be found?
 Thanks

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>Where can the article by Zutz be found?
 Thanks<hr></blockquote>
 It was in Handloader about five years ago. The title was something like "Defining the Brush Gun." I'll look it up tonight.

Robert,
 
 'Just curious, but what component bullets do you like in each of the cartridges that you reload for in the Model 99 and why do you find that bullet, or those bullets, optimal for your applications?
 
 If Stockers likes round nose lead and you like pointed lead, does that make Stocker wrong just because he could use pointed bullets in a Model 99? For short range, less than 150 yards, hunting, why would the shape of a projectile's point matter? For example, what practical value would a pointed bullet add to the 303, 30-30, 32-40, 375, or 38-55 when compared to a round or flat pointed bullet?
 
 Sincerely,
 
 Bearrr264

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>If Stockers likes round nose lead and you like pointed lead, does that make Stocker wrong just because he could use pointed bullets in a Model 99?<hr></blockquote>
 His line of thinking is wrong.
 
 
 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr>For example, what practical value would a pointed bullet add to the 303, 30-30, 32-40, 375, or 38-55 when compared to a round or flat pointed bullet?<hr></blockquote>
 What practical value would there be in using a flat nose bullet? Not needed in a Model 99.
 
 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr>Just curious, but what component bullets do you like in each of the cartridges that you reload for in the Model 99 and why do you find that bullet, or those bullets, optimal for your applications?<hr></blockquote>
 I go for accuracy, just as Zutz pointed out.

Robert,
 
 Just because you CAN use pointed bullets in the Model 99 doesn't make pointed bullets the best/only solution for every application. Perhaps round nose cast bullets are the best solution for Stocker's application.
 
 Don Zutz's opinion was just that, opinion. Not to be disrespectful, but I don't recall his name ever being cited among the giants of gun writing journalism world. Why should anyone take what he has written as being the bottom line on any subject? He was certainly a "name", just like Ken Waters and Larry Koller, but he isn't a giant in the same vein as O'Connor, Keith, et al. I recently read an article by Barsness, or perhaps Van Zwoll, that championed the round nose for accuracy, so whose version of the "truth" do I believe, Barsness, or Van Zwoll, who I like, or Zutz who I never particularly cared for?
 
 Are you going to answer my question about your favorite Model 99 projectiles, or are you going to dodge the issue and not allow Stocker a chance to cross examine your selection?
 
 Sincerely,
 
 Bearrr264

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>Are you going to answer my question about your favorite Model 99 projectiles, or are you going to dodge the issue and not allow Stocker a chance to cross examine your selection?<hr></blockquote>
 Already answered it. Go back and look.
 
 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr>I recently read an article by Barsness, or perhaps Van Zwoll, that championed the round nose for accuracy, so whose version of the "truth" do I believe<hr></blockquote>
 I don't recall Zutz writing, or me paraphrasing him that round nose/flat nose bullets were inaccurate. Mr. Zutz stated in his writing that accuracy was more important over so-called "brush bucking" abilities. If you're using a flat nose or round nose bullet over a spitzer simply because your belief is better penetration, less deflection, then you're mistaken. There's no advantage gained in that regard.
 
 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr>Barsness, or Van Zwoll, who I like, or Zutz who I never particularly cared for?<hr></blockquote>
 And I'm sure he spoke highly of you as well.

Bearrr264,
 
 I finally got a box of factory .303 Savage in Winchester brand. It wasn't the collector box I lost in the auction.
 A fine gentleman let me have a box for a reasonable
 price plus shipping.
 
 I am going to hang on to the 200 primed cases for my use. I have a temp/atmosphere controlled armory and
 I have ammo that is nearly as old as I am that works fine.
 
 Thanks for your comments.
 
 Norm

Another voice
 John Wootters book ''Practical Handloading'', ''always select a blunt-nose design. Round or flat-nosed cast bullets are shorter than snouty spitzers, and therefore are easier to stabilize in normal rifling twists at the moderate velocities most practical for cast-bullet shooting''. From my own observations blunt cast bullets can be seated father out in a cartridge with the short magazine constraints of the 99. therefore placeing the bearing surface of the bullet closer to the lands, decreasing jump and impoveing accuracy also increasing case capacity and lowering pressure. I don't have any pressure measuring equipment, so this is just an opinion based on observation.
 Respectfully
 erich

erich: Ross Seyfried has an interesting article on bullet shape, penetration etc. on page 86 of the June 2002 issue of Handloader. Best regards.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>John Wootters book ''Practical Handloading'', ''always select a blunt-nose design. Round or flat-nosed cast bullets are shorter than snouty spitzers, and therefore are easier to stabilize in normal rifling twists at the moderate velocities most practical for cast-bullet shooting''.<hr></blockquote>
 What's a normal rifling twist? What about paper patched bullets? They're driven at velocities in excess of 2500 feet/second. Stabilization is based on OGIVE length, not whether a bullet is a spitzer, a round nose, flat nose, etc. Lyman covers this fairly thoroughly in several of their past load manuals. Note that many of their designs are of the spitzer variety with short OGIVE lengths.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>erich: Ross Seyfried has an interesting article on bullet shape, penetration etc. on page 86 of the June 2002 issue of Handloader. Best regards.<hr></blockquote>
 stocker: 99.9% of Seyfried's information doesn't apply to deer or any other thin-skinned game. Do you shoot a lot of elephants and buff with your .303?

"Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook''
 Chapter ''The Cast Hunting Bullet''
 Text ''The design of the bullet is a very important factor. The recomended shape is either a flat or round nose, solid or hollow point, gas checked.''
 
 I have yet to find any references that recomend the pointed bullet as the best hunting bullet or the best bullet to start your cast bullet experience. If you could recomend some text to the contrary I would greatly apreciate it as I'm an avid student of cast bullet shooting.
 erich
 
 erich

From the Lyman 45th Edition Reloading Handbook, pages 246 to 247:
 
 "The jacketed bullet, due to its hardness which affords it potentially high velocity, is often designed with a long flowing ogive. Generally speaking, such bullet styles will not stabilize, or not stabilize well, within the restrictions of the cast bullet velocity."
 
 "While many pointed bullets shoot well, the bullet must be of a design that has a relatively short ogive. Such bullets have their greatest weight mass bearing directly on some portion of the rifling (groove or bore) which gives the bullet maximum alignment in the throat and bore of the rifle."
 
 The original argument stated that a flat nose or round nose bullet offered better penetration and knock down than a spitzer design. I have never posted that a spitzer was more accurate (paper patched excepted). Take a look at Lyman's designs. Many of the Ideal and Loverin designs are semi-spitzers with short ogives and give excellent accuracy.

I hate to see a man get out on a limb, get comfortable, reach into his pack and pull out a saw and start using it facing the tree. Stocker is pretty well on the mark in his evaluation of flat nosed bullets and killing effect. Randy Garret of Garret Cartridge Company, who successfully sells loaded bullets designed specifically for hunting for a living, has written several articles about this. For instance:
 
 Meplats and Impact Effect
 
 by Randy Garrett
 
 The meplat is the frontal circular flat of a flatnose bullet that first comes into contact with game. The size or diameter of the meplat effects the performance of a cast bullet in a number of important ways. Among these are terminal stability, bullet length and subsequent power generation efficiency, wound channel diameter, rate of incapacitation, aerodynamics, and, in lever-action rifles, magazine safety. We take the view, common to experienced users of large caliber cast bullets, that a large frontal flat or meplat is essential in producing quick and humane kills on big game.
 End quoted text.
 
 And in another article about the .44 Mag bullets he writes:
 
 
 "Since wound channel diameter is much more a product of meplat diameter than actual bullet diameter, it is our view that all non-expanding hunting bullets should utilize very broad meplats. Broader meplats result in larger diameter wound channels, which increase the speed of incapacitation. Another benefit of broad meplated bullets is increased penetration depth. This relationship of penetration depth to meplat diameter is quite interesting, and fundamental to proper full-potential bullet design. It is commonly believed that bullets with less meplat diameter, such as truncated cones, offer less resistance to penetration and, therefore, provide deeper penetration. This would be true if terminal stability was not influenced by meplat diameter. However, bullets such as truncated cones with less frontal area, and greater front to back weight disparity, are far less stable upon impact, and, as a consequence, provide less penetration. It is always easier to observe than explain, but clearly as the weight disparity between the front of the bullet and the rear of the bullet increases, there is a tendency for the heavier end to overtake the lighter end upon impact. This takes the form of the rear of the bullet moving forward faster than the front, resulting in yaw which greatly inhibits penetration. Simply stated, the bullet goes sideways. However, when the weight disparity between the front of the bullet and the rear of the bullet is minor, or non-existent, this tendency to yaw is greatly reduced and the bullet penetrates deeper. However, once the issue of front to back weight disparity is corrected, and bullet yaw is substantially eliminated, further increases in meplat diameter result in reduced penetration depth. These facts have led to our choice of .320-inch diameter meplats for our 44 Magnum Hammerheads. Significantly less meplat diameter results in reduced penetration, as does significantly increased meplat diameters."
 
 End quoted text.
 
 Is that enough or do you need more? Not that I expect you to agree, but try to think about it.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>I hate to see a man get out on a limb, get comfortable, reach into his pack and pull out a saw and start using it facing the tree. Stocker is pretty well on the mark in his evaluation of flat nosed bullets and killing effect.<hr></blockquote>
 Gee, why are 99% of our bullets of the spitzer variety? If there were any truth to your theory, everything would be shaped like a pumpkin. Hint: most bullets are not.

Robert:
 
 Hint: The discussion was of cast bullets. That normally translates into lower velocities where weight and bullet shape are very important, since you can't use the velocity of the bullet to promote expansion with say a hollow point/ballistic tip, etc. and with lower velocities you can't or rather probably shouldn't use a hollow point on larger game as it kills your pentrating abilities.
 
 The shape of most rifle bullets is more a function of what the market expects than a reflection of what is necessary. In actual fact, there is not as big a penalty regarding air resistance for blunter noses on bullets as one would think. Only when you get into much longer range hunting/target shooting conditions does the shape play a significant role in the trajectory.
 
 And, besides, most rifle bullets are not designed for maximum penetration.
 
 But, hey, I didn't expect you to agree, I was just hoping you would think about it......but we don't always get our hopes granted. I gather that you think Randy Garret is just some idiot who knows nothing about bullet design and performance and you, of course, do. Sure...........

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>The shape of most rifle bullets is more a function of what the market expects than a reflection of what is necessary.<hr></blockquote>
 Oh, so you're a bullet manufacturer?
 
 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr>But, hey, I didn't expect you to agree<hr></blockquote>
 I don't, so what's your point?
 
 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr>I gather that you think Randy Garret is just some idiot who knows nothing about bullet design and performance and you, of course, do. Sure........... <hr></blockquote>
 Your lame attempts at wit and even lamer attempts at insults aren't needed. It's time for you to leave.

Robert:
 
 Unless some one elected you king of the Savage Collector's thread, I'm here, so get used to it. Don't like my thoughts, don't read them, or better yet, don't respond. Or, quit spouting bovine fecal matter and I won't have to post as often. I note that your only responses to my posts are even more feeble attempts to change the topic. Not responding to the well know fact that flat nosed CAST bullets kill better. Wonder why Keith designed his with flat noses? Must not have had your knowledge and input or he would have known better.
 
 My lame attempts at humor are somewhat better than your lame attempts at being a bullet guru.
 
 And, my point regarding your agreement, like I care,was, that contrary to your opinion, there are others out there reading this thread who might want some differing opinions, and they can decide who is correct, or try some pointed and flat nosed cast bullets on game and see which works best. My, and many others experience is that wider meplats and hard cast bullets are superior killers as opposed to your pointy preferences. But, of course, placement is, within reason, the most critical factor.
 
 Have a nice day.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>I note that your only responses to my posts are even more feeble attempts to change the topic.<hr></blockquote>
 Be specific.
 
 
 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr>Or, quit spouting bovine fecal matter and I won't have to post as often.<hr></blockquote>
 Yes, and I can see your posts have been useful as well.
 
 
 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr>My lame attempts at humor are somewhat better than your lame attempts at being a bullet guru.<hr></blockquote>
 I don't recall making that claim, but you seem to be making it of yourself.
 
 
 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr>Unless some one elected you king of the Savage Collector's thread, I'm here, so get used to it.<hr></blockquote>
 I'm curious, what needful data have you offered to we Savage collectors? Again, be specific.
 
 
 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr>Don't like my thoughts, don't read them, or better yet, don't respond.<hr></blockquote>
 Perhaps you should take your own advice.

Robert:
 
 Strong riposte. I'm impressed. NOT.
 
 I will take my advice and ignore your BS except when you are so obviously wrong on the FACTS of the matter. As I said above, let the other readers decide and use what bullets they choose. I'll use larger meplats and heavier CAST bullets for game, you use whatever you wish, if you ever shoot anything but your mouth. I'm not out of here, but I am done responding to anything that dribbles out of your posts at least for now. My computer can only stand so much.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>I will take my advice and ignore your BS except when you are so obviously wrong on the FACTS of the matter.<hr></blockquote>
 Don't confuse facts with your OPINIONS.
 
 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr>I'm not out of here, but I am done responding to anything that dribbles out of your posts at least for now.<hr></blockquote>
 Uh, am I supposed to have my feelings hurt because of this?
 
 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr>I'll use larger meplats and heavier CAST bullets for game, you use whatever you wish, if you ever shoot anything but your mouth.<hr></blockquote>
 It's easy to be tough on the internet.

Guys, I hate to get in the middle here, but what's going on in this post is exactly what made the old GUN & KNIFE forum so unfriendly to the point where people were afraid to bring up a question or make a statement without being verbally shredded.
 May I suggest that all parties agree to disagree and move on. Thanks. -Tom T.

TomT,
 
 Come on Tom, you're stealing Rodney King's line! Why would anyone be afraid to confront someone on the net, where nobody knows who you really are, except Rick and he ain't tellin'?
 
 Somebody has to fill the role of the "Contrary Curmudgeon" and Robert fills it with a certain annoying air of superiority!
 
 Not that he needs a good defense, but Robert is very knowledgable and sparring with him is a challenge that I enjoy. Even when he disagrees with me and tells me that I'm an idiot, I just grin and bearrr it. Life in the Savage forum without Robert would just be less interesting.
 
 Sincerely,
 
 Bearrr264

The spitzer design is in no way the cast bullet of choice for hunting. It is a target bullet alone. A cast spitzer alloyed and/or heat treated to withstand velocities exceeding 1500-1600 fps will act like a military FMJ in flesh. This means a bullet specifically designed to be "humane" under three international treaties on small arms dating to 1899.
 
 If we use a typical .30 caliber spitzer as an example, the projectile will travel point-on for the first six inches or so of penetration. Damage will be minimal if striking velocity is less than 2100 fps, this due to largely nonexistant temporary cavitation and zero expansion or fragmentation. After about six inches of penetration in soft tissues the bullet will begin to tumble, ending up base-forward after travelling another ten inches or so. From there it will continue base-forward until all energy is expended or the bullet perforates the target and exits. Maximum damage from this yawing bullet occurs from ~8-14" in soft tissue. Unless a critical organ is damaged by the bullet, terminal ballistics like this almost guarantee an animal will run a great distance before expiring. If bullet placement is anything less than perfect a lost and wounded animal is likely.
 
 If anyone would like verification of this, please consult the works of Dr. Martin Fackler, (Col. USA Retired). He was the head of the Army's Wound Ballistics Lab for many years, a Vietnam-experienced trauma surgeon, and consultant to law enforcement worldwide. Many of his works are available on-line.
 
 A cast bullet of the same weight, alloy, hardness, and velocity with a significant meplat will cut a wider swath through tissue and remain point-on for maximum penetration. The wider the meplat, the more destruction to tissue. This is a well-known fact among serious casters, who have known for years that Elmer Keith was wrong in thinking the sharp shoulder of his bullet design cut a full diameter wound. It doesn't, the nose (meplat) does. That is why the Veral Smith-designed LBT style of bullet is the predominant one among cast bullet hunters. Meplat area is maximized to the point of looking like a slightly curved wadcutter in several incarnations. For example I use 180-grain .357's that have a slightly larger meplat than the .44-caliber Keith. Such a bullet is also far less likely to be deflected by bone than a nonexpanding spitzer.
 
 I know of no one in the serious cast bullet hunting community that would suggest a lead spitzer for big game hunting.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>That is why the Veral Smith-designed LBT style of bullet is the predominant one among cast bullet hunters.<hr></blockquote>
 Isn't Veral in the pen?
 
 Sorry, I ain't buying any of the other theory BS. A thirty caliber hole is a thirty caliber hole is a thirty caliber hole. Lyman's explanation of the use of shorter ogive bullets is that better support allows for better accuracy at lower velocities. All of this other pontification doesn't prove a helluva lot other than to provide an avenue on which someone can park their opinions.

Bill,
 
 I don't cast bullets, I hardly ever shoot cast bullets, and I would recognize a meplet if I hit it with a stick. I was responding to TomT's concern about Robert running people off the forum.
 
 This is, after all, a forum for sharing ideas, information, and opinions. Everybody has an right to his/her own opinion and, if we each listen long enough and keep an open mind, we all can learn something. Even Robert.
 
 Sincerely,
 
 Bearrr264

Robert,
 
 I'll just waste a very brief moment on this by saying it is obvious you have no idea what you're talking about in the matter of cast bullets and hunting. In other areas you may be quite knowledgeable but this isn't one.
 
 There is no pontification on my part. I am simply conveying well known and tested information by those who have been there and done that. Obviously you haven't. Certainly an expert on pontification like yourself should be able to see the difference.
 
 Finally how are Mr. Smith's tax problems germane to this discussion? Clearly it is a feeble attempt to build yourself up at the expense of others. Your childishness is beginning to amaze me and I've only been at this board for a few days.

Bearr,
 
 Thanks for the polite response. I should have replied to an earlier posting with regards to cast bullet terminal ballistics but at that point yours was the last in line. My apologies if you thought I was questioning your knowledge or motives. It was simply an example of wanting to respond to Robert as quickly as possible after reading the entire thread.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>Finally how are Mr. Smith's tax problems germane to this discussion? Clearly it is a feeble attempt to build yourself up at the expense of others. Your childishness is beginning to amaze me and I've only been at this board for a few days.<hr></blockquote>
 Who said I was building myself up at anyone's expense? I merely pointed out something. Was it not true?
 
 
 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr>I'll just waste a very brief moment on this by saying it is obvious you have no idea what you're talking about in the matter of cast bullets and hunting.<hr></blockquote>
 If it's a waste, then why respond? The bullets are designed to be propelled from a rifled barrel and strike a target with some degree of accuracy, are they not?

Thanks everyone who has contributed to this. I got into this with facts from known and resppected writers and mold suppliers, now I have the information that backs up their recomendations.
 Thank You
 erich

BillLester:
 
 I appreciate someone who knows what to do when the game is down telling it like it is. Didn't make any difference to Mr. Pontificate, but at least someone else is helping with information that might help those who don't know everything.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>I appreciate someone who knows what to do when the game is down telling it like it is. Didn't make any difference to Mr. Pontificate, but at least someone else is helping with information that might help those who don't know everything.<hr></blockquote>
 I assume this is some more "wit" directed at me. Hmmmm, let's see, you could carry your slide rule and big book of "Uninteresting Bullet Trivia" into the woods and see just how many deer that puts down. On the other hand, you could select the most accurate bullet and make a good shot. Oh I know, there's nothing in any of your books about that stuff and most of your armchair experts haven't ever thought about that end of things.
 
 Meplat! Meplat! Meplat! Deer don't care about meplat. Savvy?

I hate to match wits with an unarmed man, deer don't care about meplats, hunters who understand what kills them do.
 
 As for armchair hunters, I don't know how much you actually hunt, but your ignorance on the use of cast bullets would tend to indicate very little in the way of results, or, alternatively, that you don't hunt with cast bullets and are just spouting off. Lots of guys shoot more big game than I do, but I've killed over 20 wild hogs and quite a few deer in just the last year. Quite a few of them with cast bullets. Care to say how many head of big game you've shot, Mr. Recliner?

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>you don't hunt with cast bullets and are just spouting off<hr></blockquote>
 Oh yeah, you got me. My secret's out now.
 
 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr>I've killed over 20 wild hogs and quite a few deer in just the last year. Quite a few of them with cast bullets.<hr></blockquote>
 Just like the toughness thing a few posts back. Guess it's easy to fabricate things on the internet, huh?

Robert:
 
 I am thrilled that we are finally in agreement. It is quite easy for you to fabricate things on the net.
 
 If you think I am fabricating the numbers I mentioned above, why don't you just put a little money where you mouth is. Say a hundred dollars an animal or more, and I will produce photos and affidavits from people who were either hunting the same area, usually my ranch, or saw me bringing the game out, or helped me skin it. Now is your big chance to prove whether I am fabricating or not, go for it.
 
 BTW, Mr. Recliner, I notice you didn't mention how many deer or whatever you killed last year. Must have overlooked that, I'm sure.
 
 You keep mentioning toughness, twice now. Are you trying to get some kind of juvenile response, akin to yours? Why don't you tell us how tough you are, since you seem so obsessed with the concept, and we will pretend that we care.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>You keep mentioning toughness, twice now. Are you trying to get some kind of juvenile response, akin to yours? Why don't you tell us how tough you are, since you seem so obsessed with the concept, and we will pretend that we care.<hr></blockquote>
 Just responding to your posts. BTW, didn't you say you weren't going to respond to me anymore?
 
 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr>BTW, Mr. Recliner, I notice you didn't mention how many deer or whatever you killed last year. Must have overlooked that, I'm sure.<hr></blockquote>
 You mentioned hogs, but no numbers on deer.
 
 Anxiously awaiting your next highly articulate response, though you said you wouldn't.

Robert:
 
 Your usual repertoire, more questions, but no answers. I gather that means that you don't want to bet. Or to say how many head you've shot. Wonder why?
 
 Your reading abilities are just one small increment above your ability to spread useful information. I wrote in my third post in this thread, replying to your false claims about bullet shape and performance, "Or, quit spouting bovine fecal matter and I won't have to post as often. I note that your only responses to my posts are even more feeble attempts to change the topic."
 
 You haven't quit, are still trying to divert the topic, so I am still here, and you are still unresponsive to any questions about your hunting abilities or knowledge, which to any knowledgeable observer is obvious.
 
 "le plus ca change, le plus est le meme chose".

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>Your usual repertoire, more questions, but no answers. I gather that means that you don't want to bet. Or to say how many head you've shot. Wonder why?<hr></blockquote>
 Oh I get it, if I say five, you'll say six and through some sort of strange circular logic try and discredit me. Right?
 
 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr>Your reading abilities are just one small increment above your ability to spread useful information. I wrote in my third post in this thread, replying to your false claims about bullet shape and performance, "Or, quit spouting bovine fecal matter and I won't have to post as often. I note that your only responses to my posts are even more feeble attempts to change the topic."<hr></blockquote>
 Feeble? Example, please.
 
 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr>You haven't quit, are still trying to divert the topic, so I am still here, and you are still unresponsive to any questions about your hunting abilities or knowledge, which to any knowledgeable observer is obvious.<hr></blockquote>
 Divert the topic? How so? As in the past, please be specific (you have failed to be specific thus far).
 
 You're rather chatty for someone who wasn't going to respond. My, my, this is starting to get fun.

Robert:
 
 I've said how many I shot, and that includes 3 whitetails, one buck(10 points, but not a big rack) and two does last season. So why won't you say how many you've shot with anything, much less cast bullets, Oh Mighty Hunter? I don't have to try to discredit you, you are doing an admirable job of it yourself.
 
 As for my not responding to your posts........AGAIN, your FEEBLE reading abilities are up to your usual standards. Just to save you the effort, I'll quote the sentence you keep harping on, for lack of anything better to say, "I'm not out of here, but I am done responding to anything that dribbles out of your posts at least for now." Note the key qualifier, "at least for now". You didn't quit while you were behind, preferring to prolong the agony of the other readers, so I responded to your drivel because it is so obviously false as regards bullets. I note AGAIN that you have no reports of how many big game animals that you have killed with your vaunted spitzer CAST bullets or anything else for that matter.
 
 However, since you are too chicken manure to bet and try to prove that I am full of it, as you say, and since you won't report on any factual results(likely because there aren't any) to reinforce your opinions I and most readers will conclude what I said in an earlier post, you spout Bovine Fecal Matter, at least as far as cast hunting bullets are concerned, and will weigh your opinions accordingly.
 
 But, this is past tiring to other readers, I am sure, and I am going to stop reacting to your BS, since you have no facts to contribute, just questions attacking my statements, or opinions formed by reading a 5 year old article. Good job and Goodbye for now, you twit.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr>Just to save you the effort, I'll quote the sentence you keep harping on, for lack of anything better to say, "I'm not out of here, but I am done responding to anything that dribbles out of your posts at least for now." Note the key qualifier, "at least for now".<hr></blockquote>
 Oh, so you're splitting hairs.
 
 You keep accusing me of changing the subject and not answering questions, but you have yet to answer any of mine, like being a bullet manufacturer. You have more or less changed the subject so that I am now the focus here. Oh yeah, you've also made a personal attack or two on me.
 
 Again, how has this been constructive or useful to Savage collectors? It's time for you to leave for real this time.

Mom, brother hit me back first.

Maybe it has ended, finally!

Oh man,
 
 and I thought they were just getting warmed up, I thought it might turn into a true old fashioned pissing match............oh well, maybe next time.
 
 TX

This was all over the shape of cast bullets used for hunting.
 Just think if they disagreed on something really important!

Well fellas,
 
 I think that sjc1, txtornado, and 2nd amendment are right, this got to be a personal attack, rather than an honest difference of opinions. Now if you were debating something really important, like which model in the VS catalog makes Viagra as unnecessary as cast lead bullets, I'd say keep going! But you aren't, so don't.
 
 Robert, you can't always be right. Just ask you wife.
 
 IIFID, you can't always be right either, Just ask Robert.
 
 Diplomatically yours,
 
 Bearrr264

Well said fellows but it'll be back...Wait and see.
 
 Elwood