Buffalo Bore is now offering a Dangerous Game line loaded with Lehigh Bullets.

Status
Not open for further replies.
These revolver bullets sound similar in concept to the old A-Square Monolithic Solids in rifle calibers from the 80's and 90's.

https://www.midwayusa.com/product/6...0-grain-monolithic-round-nose-solid-box-of-25


Round nose solids are pretty much no longer en vogue with rifle hunters having finally (and I do mean finally) discovered flat-nose profiles. Handgun hunters have been using flat-nosed solids for decades, but it's better late than never for the rifle hunters. Round nosed solids have a tendency to not track straight and they don't produce much of a wound channel compared to flat-nosed designs.
 
So I have several questions that came up in my mind last night as I lamented the degeneration and inevitable thread lock that occurred.

First, I have several times heard the assertion that the best combination for stopping large and dangerous game is a heavy bullet moving at moderate velocity. As we have discussed here and in other threads, this is due to the need for mass to carry the bullet through the target, and also moderate velocity is needed to avoid deformation and deflection of that heavy lead bullet. Several years ago I remember a discussion I had with CraigC, and he asserted that the 460 S&W magnum could be problematic for this reason. High velocity which the 460 mag has in spades could work against the cartridge. High speed light rounds shoot like a laser, but can come apart on impact. In fact I remember seeing a picture from CraigC of an entry wound with an XTP bullet that looked like a crater. It was far from ideal. Corbon made monometal bullets for the 460 magnum from early on, but they were designed to expand. I have no doubt they are effective on large antlered game, but I wonder how well they anchor a critter.

1) So my question is in the eyes of big game hunters/dangerous game hunters, does an offering like this, or the bullet at least, increase the utility of a inherently high speed cartridge like 460 S&W magnum? To me it seems a great combo for that cartridge as it will greatly increase the down range effectiveness of the cartridge, and to me that's the real benefit, as the range of that cartridge is where it shines. I'm still a little hesitant on the way they have it projected past the case mouth, and they do make a statement about bullet creep. However my 460 mag dies at home could remedy that situation for myself, and I don't necessarily see the need any longer to send a 300 grain bullet through the air at 1900 fps. I suspect for my purposes, 1600 fps would do just fine. I know, I know. Why'd I buy a 460 magnum then? Because I was young and it was cool.

2) Along with that comes my next thought. There are dozens of threads and conversations about the cavitation caused by rifle and pistol bullets. I feel it's fairly well established from real world tests that cavitation with handguns can't really be relied upon to significantly increase permanent wounding and thus a stop on any living critter. Perhaps temporarily, but permanent wounds are what matter to me if we are talking about dangerous animals as they are more measurable. So with a high speed 460 mag, with a monolithic that doesn't deform, and will blow right through a dangerous animal, does anyone think, or better yet have evidence that cavitation becomes permanent? Will any of you bovine bashers be trying that cartridge out in this offering? I realize it is purely academic as a larger diameter and heavier bullet will do the job, but I'm just interested.

3) Will anyone be trying out the screwdriver type Lehigh bullets on large, but less dangerous game? They are designed to generate cavitation type wounds, but I am not a believer, and gel tests are not the same as a heavy bodied animal, despite the fact that they are designed to simulate human tissue. I more or less believe they are a gimmick and I would not want the flutes on the bullet nose slowing the bullet down. I'd want it sailing right through an animal. Though perhaps given the weight, and tendency not to deform, perhaps the Lehigh screwdrivers would still pass right through.

4) And finally, I know that the Ruger Redhawk and super Redhawk are generally considered to be more robust and resistant to wear and tear than a S&W 29/629. @CraigC , I have heard this assertion from you a few times. In fact I've heard that a S&W 44 mag N frame will shoot loose with heavy loads fairly quickly. I am not disputing that at all because I have no dog in that fight. But, do you think that the lighter bullet weights in monolithics, combined with reasonable velocity would allow for less abuse of a 29/629 in these offerings, or in handloads? Or do you feel the desire for velocity would still beat the guns up at the same rate? People like speed, and it does have an impact on bone breakage. The question may be moot as these particular loads are still quite warm. Just curious what you think.
 
Last edited:
Round nose solids are pretty much no longer en vogue with rifle hunters having finally (and I do mean finally) discovered flat-nose profiles. Handgun hunters have been using flat-nosed solids for decades, but it's better late than never for the rifle hunters. Round nosed solids have a tendency to not track straight and they don't produce much of a wound channel compared to flat-nosed designs.

Yes, the flat nose designs have moved into prominence for field use, but I was thinking more about the bullet construction characteristics of these new projectiles versus the almost 40 year old mono products.
 
So I have several questions that came up in my mind last night as I lamented the degeneration and inevitable thread lock that occurred.

First, I have several times heard the assertion that the best combination for stopping large and dangerous game is a heavy bullet moving at moderate velocity. As we have discussed here and in other threads, this is due to the need for mass to carry the bullet through the target, and also moderate velocity is needed to avoid deformation and deflection of that heavy lead bullet. Several years ago I remember a discussion I had with CraigC, and he asserted that the 460 S&W magnum could be problematic for this reason. High velocity which the 460 mag has in spades could work against the cartridge. High speed light rounds shoot like a laser, but can come apart on impact. In fact I remember seeing a picture from CraigC of an entry wound with an XTP bullet that looked like a crater. It was far from ideal. Corbon made monometal bullets for the 460 magnum from early on, but they were designed to expand. I have no doubt they are effective on large antlered game, but I wonder how well they anchor a critter.

1) So my question is in the eyes of big game hunters/dangerous game hunters, does an offering like this, or the bullet at least, increase the utility of a inherently high speed cartridge like 460 S&W magnum? To me it seems a great combo for that cartridge as it will greatly increase the down range effectiveness of the cartridge, and to me that's the real benefit, as the range of that cartridge is where it shines. I'm still a little hesitant on the way they have it projected past the case mouth, and they do make a statement about bullet creep. However my 460 mag dies at home could remedy that situation for myself, and I don't necessarily see the need any longer to send a 300 grain bullet through the air at 1900 fps. I suspect for my purposes, 1600 fps would do just fine. I know, I know. Why'd I buy a 460 magnum then? Because I was young and it was cool.

2) Along with that comes my next thought. There are dozens of threads and conversations about the cavitation caused by rifle and pistol bullets. I feel it's fairly well established from real world tests that cavitation with handguns can't really be relied upon to significantly increase wounding and thus a stop on any living critter. Perhaps temporarily, but permanent wounds are what matter to me if we are talking about dangerous animals. So with a high speed 460 mag, with a monolithic that doesn't deform, and will blow right through a dangerous animal, does anyone think, or better yet have evidence that cavitation becomes permanent? Will any of you bovine bashers be trying that cartridge out in this offering? I realize it is purely academic as a larger diameter and heavier bullet will do the job, but I'm just interested.

3) Will anyone be trying out the screwdriver type Lehigh bullets on large, but less dangerous game? They are designed to generate cavitation type wounds, but I am not a believer, and gel tests are not the same as a heavy bodied animal, despite the fact that they are designed to simulate human tissue. I more or less believe they are a gimmick and I would not want the flutes on the bullet nose slowing the bullet down. I'd want it sailing right through an animal. Though perhaps given the weight, and tendency not to deform, perhaps the Lehigh screwdrivers would still pass right through.

4) And finally, I know that the Ruger Redhawk and super Redhawk are generally considered to be more robust and resistant to wear and tear than a S&W 29/629. @CraigC , I have heard this assertion from you a few times. In fact I've heard that a S&W 44 mag N frame will shoot loose with heavy loads fairly quickly. I am not disputing that at all because I have no dog in that fight. But, do you think that the lighter bullet weights in monolithics, combined with reasonable velocity would allow for less abuse of a 29/629 in these offerings, or in handloads? Or do you feel the desire for velocity would still beat the guns up at the same rate. The question may be moot as these particular loads are still quite warm. Just curious what you think.

The velocity and lousy bullets are what turned me off the .460 in the early years of its existence. That has changed for me with the discovery of the Swift A-frame. Member tradmark has been using A-frames with fantastic success for years in both the .460 and .454. We've also been playing with them in the .500 JRH lately, but I digress. The factory Swift loads for the .460 will run better than 2,000 fps out of a 7 1/2-inch BFR and it is a KILLING machine in no uncertain terms. Last year he shot 13 animals in South Africa with that load from wart hog through Cape buffalo with that same load. It literally does it all. The recovered A-frames all come out looking the same irrespective of what they hit. Fantastic bullet.

The Buffalo Bore load was loaded long to get reasonable velocity (over 2,100 again out of the BFR) at reasonable pressure. The faster you push these flat-nosed solids, the more damage they do, period. The wound channel increases and the depth of penetration also increases. We will be trying them out at the next Bash. We tried the Phillips head LeHighs last year and they do not compare favorably to the flat-nosed bullets they produce.

Those .44 loads are still pretty hot and well the 29 just wasn't built for abuse. The short answer is that I don't know. I'm sure a light diet of that load would do fine. Anyhow, you don't want to use those loads for practice but find something with a similar POI and use that for practice, loading those for bear protection.
 
Thank you Walkalong for cleaning up the thread and reopening it. :)


These revolver bullets sound similar in concept to the old A-Square Monolithic Solids in rifle calibers from the 80's and 90's.
Similar in that they are made from one homogeneous material. Although in the handgun bullets, the Grizzly Punch and Barnes Buster have lead cores to add some mass.


So I have several questions that came up in my mind last night as I lamented the degeneration and inevitable thread lock that occurred.
1. These bullets change everything. Much of that has been due to myths surrounding cast bullets and their inherent limitations. The argument has always been that they do not need to be pushed fast to be effective and that it was unnecessary to do so. While that is partly true, it is also mostly due to the limitations of the material. Greater velocity increases deformation and decreases penetration. These bullets, along with the Swift A-frame, allow you to take advantage of that velocity and not worry about bullets deforming.

2. There is evidence that every bit of velocity increases wounding. To what degree is difficult to prove because it can really only be observed in the field. We're really just now starting to experiment with the effects of velocity. I'm going to test the effects on penetration in SIMTEST but I can't measure wound channels.

3. Mark and/or some of his crew have used them and have not been impressed with the wound channels they produce. Lehigh was really stuck on that design but MaxP has shown them the way. ;)

4. I don't think these particular loads will help in that regard at all. They're still quite high in pressure. They're also having to use faster powders to get the pressure up. The Grizzly Punch is a 270gr at 1450fps and the Buffalo Bore is a 265gr at over 1400fps. These bullets are LONG, as long as a 330gr LFN. So I imagine both loads are using every bit of the available pressure. You could use a handful for zeroing and carrying but I wouldn't shoot a lot of them through any N-frame. Of course, the cost kinda precludes that anyway. If handloading, you could easily throttle them back to 1100-1200fps. Which is where Lehigh's data is. I haven't even figured out how to match Buffalo Bore's velocity yet!
 
It is my experience that a ruger srh with a jack huntington tuned trigger will do more and never leave you wanting a smith 629.

Max p made a mention of the 460 rounds i used in africa. My son used a 460 with barnes 275 loads to great results. My ph said it best, “that 460 kills better than any revolver ive ever seen used here.” When the bullets keep up with what the cartridge the velocity will always increase killing power. At the bovine bash, on tests on dead water buffs the same animals that consistently stopped bigger slower caliber, the 460 with monometals cut through them like a hot knife thru butter. Fast, but not as fast rounds like the 454 blow through as well. What at one time was a hindrance to revolver performance is a boon to their performance with these bullets. They rewite all the rules.
 
Thank you Walkalong for cleaning up the thread and reopening it. :)



Similar in that they are made from one homogeneous material. Although in the handgun bullets, the Grizzly Punch and Barnes Buster have lead cores to add some mass.



1. These bullets change everything. Much of that has been due to myths surrounding cast bullets and their inherent limitations. The argument has always been that they do not need to be pushed fast to be effective and that it was unnecessary to do so. While that is partly true, it is also mostly due to the limitations of the material. Greater velocity increases deformation and decreases penetration. These bullets, along with the Swift A-frame, allow you to take advantage of that velocity and not worry about bullets deforming.

2. There is evidence that every bit of velocity increases wounding. To what degree is difficult to prove because it can really only be observed in the field. We're really just now starting to experiment with the effects of velocity. I'm going to test the effects on penetration in SIMTEST but I can't measure wound channels.

3. Mark and/or some of his crew have used them and have not been impressed with the wound channels they produce. Lehigh was really stuck on that design but MaxP has shown them the way. ;)

4. I don't think these particular loads will help in that regard at all. They're still quite high in pressure. They're also having to use faster powders to get the pressure up. The Grizzly Punch is a 270gr at 1450fps and the Buffalo Bore is a 265gr at over 1400fps. These bullets are LONG, as long as a 330gr LFN. So I imagine both loads are using every bit of the available pressure. You could use a handful for zeroing and carrying but I wouldn't shoot a lot of them through any N-frame. Of course, the cost kinda precludes that anyway. If handloading, you could easily throttle them back to 1100-1200fps. Which is where Lehigh's data is. I haven't even figured out how to match Buffalo Bore's velocity yet!



This . Except i have it figured how to get the velocity.
 
I haven't even figured out how to match Buffalo Bore's velocity yet!
That's the real magic of BB isn't it? The day you figure that out, you could start a million dollar company, or blackmail Buffalo Bore not to reveal their secret. ;)

It is my experience that a ruger srh with a jack huntington tuned trigger will do more and never leave you wanting a smith 629.
I'm actually going to wait and see what the Super GP100 evolves into, since it's on the SRH frame, I will keep your comment in mind.

thanks gents
 
Last edited:
2. There is evidence that every bit of velocity increases wounding. To what degree is difficult to prove because it can really only be observed in the field. We're really just now starting to experiment with the effects of velocity. I'm going to test the effects on penetration in SIMTEST but I can't measure wound channels.

It's a shame that so many people bought with religious intensity the strong Facklerite view - that because velocity-related tissue disruption/displacement isn't easily observed an hour or more after the shooting has stopped by a surgeon, it is/was of no consequence.
 
We are lucky to have so many good bullet choices these days that most of us can't afford to/don't have the time too, shoot them all to crown something(s) the best, so for folks who have the ability to test things on real live animals to be willing to share the results with us is tremendous, IMHO.

Even though I am highly unlikely to go to Africa etc and shoot a dangerous game animal, I still love to read real life experiences with them. I love my .458 Win Mag (The bottom end of big game rifle calibers) as a range toy, and have actually shot a wild hog with it, but my need is not that great here in Alabama where I'll be shooting a soft deer or a semi tough decent sized pig.

I used to love reading G&A for experiences just like this, it sure is nice having the internet with the massive amount of info available vs the old days where we read a magazine or two every month. We have a massive amount of knowledge here at THR available 24/7. Just wow compared to 30/40/50 years ago.

Thanks to all here who contribute and share their knowledge with members and lurkers every day, we are lucky to have such a diverse and knowledgeable group of people here. :)
 
Regarding flat nose bullet damage and the effect velocity has, I found this link a day or two ago:

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/methods.html

I can't easily copy it over, but in the first chart there is (for instance) data for a .44 mag 300gr LBT WFN bullet. The wound diameter increases massively with higher velocities.

Have you guys who attend the bovine bash seen this type of performance, with wound diameters multiple times the size of none-expanding bullets? It seems like the nose design is the key to this (if the data is true), rather than the material. But of course if the material can deform, the wound channel would not be consistent after the point deformation on the bullet profile occurs. Which seems like the big plus for mono solids.
 
It's a shame that so many people bought with religious intensity the strong Facklerite view - that because velocity-related tissue disruption/displacement isn't easily observed an hour or more after the shooting has stopped by a surgeon, it is/was of no consequence.
I think the difficulty of measuring it is a contributory reason for the lack of acceptance. I know it partly plays into my perception.

But as you pointed out in another thread, incapacitation, be it permanent or temporary is really the point. That seems true in a loading meant to stop dangerous animals.

Pain and temporary immobilization can buy you time to get more shots off.

It begs the question also how dangerous/big game hunters feel about the wounding potential in general of displacement/temporary cavitation. It interests me and discussing it in relation to these offerings is as good a place as any.
 
Last edited:
That's the real magic of BB isn't it? The day you figure that out, you could start a million dollar company, or blackmail Buffalo Bore not to reveal their secret. ;)


I'm actually going to wait and see what the Super GP100 evolves into, since it's on the SRH frame, I will keep your comment in mind.

thanks gents

I am testing the first iteration of the Super GP100 and it looks promising thus far. That said, the platform doesn't feature one of the things I like the most about the SRH and that is the ability to mount an optic without removing the rear sight. I personally would stick with the original Super Redhawk platform. JMHO.
 
Even though I am highly unlikely to go to Africa etc and shoot a dangerous game animal, I still love to read real life experiences with them. I love my .458 Win Mag (The bottom end of big game rifle calibers) as a range toy, and have actually shot a wild hog with it, but my need is not that great here in Alabama where I'll be shooting a soft deer or a semi tough decent sized pig.

Thanks to all here who contribute and share their knowledge with members and lurkers every day, we are lucky to have such a diverse and knowledgeable group of people here. :)

Thank you!

As an aside, I owned a number of big caliber rifles to include a .416 Rem and a .458 Lott and I have used them numerous times on wild hogs -- lot's of fun!
 
It is my experience that a ruger srh with a jack huntington tuned trigger will do more and never leave you wanting a smith 629.

Max p made a mention of the 460 rounds i used in africa. My son used a 460 with barnes 275 loads to great results. My ph said it best, “that 460 kills better than any revolver ive ever seen used here.” When the bullets keep up with what the cartridge the velocity will always increase killing power. At the bovine bash, on tests on dead water buffs the same animals that consistently stopped bigger slower caliber, the 460 with monometals cut through them like a hot knife thru butter. Fast, but not as fast rounds like the 454 blow through as well. What at one time was a hindrance to revolver performance is a boon to their performance with these bullets. They rewite all the rules.
was the size of the exit wound a factor in how quickly the animal was stopped? assuming a well placed shot, I would think a bigger hole on the off-side would make the animal bleed out quicker.

murf
 
was the size of the exit wound a factor in how quickly the animal was stopped? assuming a well placed shot, I would think a bigger hole on the off-side would make the animal bleed out quicker.

murf

Are you talking about the solid loads or the A-frames? Even when the A-frame doesn't exit, it still leaves a path of internal destruction that is impressive to say the least.
 
yes, I was curious about the mono bullets. I thought the goal was to have complete penetration. will the mono bullets still do the job without it?

murf
 
yes, I was curious about the mono bullets. I thought the goal was to have complete penetration. will the mono bullets still do the job without it?

murf

Sure they will. Rarely at revolver velocities do we get full exits on really big animals. But that's not to say they didn't essentially go all the way through, typically under the skin on the offside. The flat-nose still produces a big wound channel and there is plenty of penetration to destroy the vitals and continue well past. What they won't do is distort when they make contact with heavy bone. While Kodiak Punch bullets aren't technically a monolithic solid (they have a lead core for added weight), I got a full seven feet of penetration on the chest shot I made on my Cape buffalo last year even going through the rumen which in an of itself is a major feat.
 
Well everybody if I ever take up handgun hunting for large/dangerous game or even elk I am planning on shooting a monolithic bullet thank you for all I have learned in this thread I can see why you would want to use these bullets
 
I am testing the first iteration of the Super GP100 and it looks promising thus far. That said, the platform doesn't feature one of the things I like the most about the SRH and that is the ability to mount an optic without removing the rear sight. I personally would stick with the original Super Redhawk platform. JMHO.
I tend to be an iron sights shooter, but if I was looking for a dedicated DA/SA hunting revolver, there doesn't seem to be a better option out there than the SRH.

While Kodiak Punch bullets aren't technically a monolithic solid (they have a lead core for added weight),
It's funny you should say that, because I didn't realize it, but thought about that as a way to achieve similar bullet weights and dimensions, without sacrificing the benefits of the monolithic bullets. I'm curious why more monolithic makers don't do this. Although, perhaps that's why Punch Bullets are so dang expensive. That's why they have their own business, and I'm just a shmuck who goes to work each day.

You know the length of monolithic bullets adding a little complexity has me thinking. When I contacted CE about their bullets, I seemed to get some conflicting info. In their FAQ area, they state (or at least they did, haven't checked) that loading data for similar weight lead and jacketed bullets can be used with their data, but you need to start 0.2 gr lower than typical starting loads. Ok. However, the load data they sent me was far below 0.2 gr, and it stated that it was max loads.

To me this represents a real issue. It seems what they should be saying is that you should use load data where bullet length is similar to their product, as case capacity is the real issue there, and too high of a charge with too long of a bullet could lead to overpressure. So if I was to load their 190 gr 10mm bullet, I'd want to look for data for maybe 220 gr lead bullets, to approach a similar length. And then start real low of course. Not squib low, but perhaps bottomed out.

It's one of the things that makes me nervous about loading my own monolithic ammo, and makes me want to just buy some of these offerings. I have other data to draw off of, and have a good starting point. But I've only been loading for about a year and a half, so I'm leery.
 
I don't believe the added weight the lead insert adds is really necessary. I don't think they would go any less deep without the lead "core." There's nothing really complicated about loading the LeHighs. I have heard problems with the CEBs pressuring up, necessitating faster burning powders, but I am not entirely convinced it's an issue even though when I did some load development with their 300 grain .45 solids, I did get erratic performance using H110. Yet Enforcer and Power Pistol worked like a charm. Oddly enough, I used the same Power Pistol load in the .480 under all three of their .475 bullet weights -- 220, 280 and 340 as all bullets are the same exact length and thereby take up the same space. Sorry for the diatribe.
 
maybe brian pearce will have a "pet loads" article on the monolithic bullets in the next issue of handloader magazine.

maybe the added weight would help fit those bullets into shorter cylindered guns.

murf
 
maybe brian pearce will have a "pet loads" article on the monolithic bullets in the next issue of handloader magazine.

maybe the added weight would help fit those bullets into shorter cylindered guns.

murf

They all fit in standard length cylinders. The only bullets loaded long is the .460, but both commercially produced revolvers in .460 will easily accommodate them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top