Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors Closer to .303 Savage ammo

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>If I recall the Zutz tests he was shooting through dowels or sticks.<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>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.
<br>
<br><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>The flat point does expend more of its energy on the way (good) and does make a larger permanent wound channel (good).<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>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?
<br>Thanks

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

Robert,
<br>
<br>'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?
<br>
<br>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?
<br>
<br>Sincerely,
<br>
<br>Bearrr264

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>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?<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>His line of thinking is wrong.
<br>
<br>
<br><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>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?<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>What practical value would there be in using a flat nose bullet? Not needed in a Model 99.
<br>
<br><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>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?<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>I go for accuracy, just as Zutz pointed out.

Robert,
<br>
<br>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.
<br>
<br>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?
<br>
<br>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?
<br>
<br>Sincerely,
<br>
<br>Bearrr264

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>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?<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>Already answered it. Go back and look.
<br>
<br><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>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<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>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.
<br>
<br><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>Barsness, or Van Zwoll, who I like, or Zutz who I never particularly cared for?<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>And I'm sure he spoke highly of you as well.

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

Another voice
<br> 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.
<br>Respectfully
<br>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><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>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''.<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>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><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>erich: Ross Seyfried has an interesting article on bullet shape, penetration etc. on page 86 of the June 2002 issue of Handloader. Best regards.<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>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''
<br> Chapter ''The Cast Hunting Bullet''
<br> 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.''
<br>
<br> 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.
<br>erich
<br>
<br>erich

From the Lyman 45th Edition Reloading Handbook, pages 246 to 247:
<br>
<br>"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."
<br>
<br>"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."
<br>
<br>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:
<br>
<br>Meplats and Impact Effect
<br>
<br>by Randy Garrett
<br>
<br>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.
<br>End quoted text.
<br>
<br>And in another article about the .44 Mag bullets he writes:
<br>
<br>
<br>"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."
<br>
<br>End quoted text.
<br>
<br>Is that enough or do you need more? Not that I expect you to agree, but try to think about it.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>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.<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>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:
<br>
<br>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.
<br>
<br>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.
<br>
<br>And, besides, most rifle bullets are not designed for maximum penetration.
<br>
<br>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...........
<br>

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>The shape of most rifle bullets is more a function of what the market expects than a reflection of what is necessary.<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>Oh, so you're a bullet manufacturer?
<br>
<br><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>But, hey, I didn't expect you to agree<p><hr></blockquote>
<br>I don't, so what's your point?
<br>
<br><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr><p>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........... <p><hr></blockquote>
<br>Your lame attempts at wit and even lamer attempts at insults aren't needed. It's time for you to leave.

Robert:
<br>
<br>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.
<br>
<br>My lame attempts at humor are somewhat better than your lame attempts at being a bullet guru.
<br>
<br>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.
<br>
<br>Have a nice day.

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