Stupid Question

[Yukon Jack]

Hello everybody!!!

I came over from the Wildcat forum, because it looks like I might have got myself in a pickle.  If you've got time to read this, I'll tell you my story.

A couple of years ago I decided I needed a better rifle for hunting deer and moose in the thick alder and devils club jungles here in Southcentral Alaska, where the bears are numerous and can weigh 1,000 pounds without it raining.  I needed a rifle that was short, fast handling, well balanced, and handy as hell.  I needed it to be powerful enough to stop an enraged charging brown bear at my shoelaces, but also needed to the velocity and trajectory capable of easily dispatching a 60" moose at 250 yards, or further.  

First the rifle.  It had to be quick handling, well balanced, wingshooting type rifle that was a repeater.  It had to accept a chambering to meet the power and trajectory requirements (which meant spitzer shaped bullets).  It had to be short for ease of handling in the alder.  I couldn't find a bolt action that didn't kill at both ends that met these requirements.  What I did find was a Winchester 1895 with a fixed box magazine that did.  What to chamber?  Well the Winchester was originally chambered for 30-06 cased cartridge.  I looked around and found that .411 was as large as I could make the bullet diameter and still be able to headspace on the shoulder (I did all this before Winchester re-introduced the 405 Winchester).  I ended up with the 411 Hawk.  350 grain premium bullet like Barnes X or Swift Aframe at near 2500 fps or the 400 grain heavy X bullet from Barnes at around 2100 fps.  Seems like it would take care of business, right?

Now the problem.  While the rifle was at the gunsmith being customized, Barnes discounted their .411 line except for the 300 grain. :cry:   I want something with a little higher sectional density.  Swift discontinued their entire line of .411 bullets.  :x  Basically the only game in town for the .411 heavyweights are Hawk and Woodleigh.   Woodleighs are really expensive and I'm not convinced that Hawk is the bullet I want to go with.

Now the question.  Can a 416 caliber bullet be swaged down to 411 without sacrificing its integrity?  These bullets are bullets I will placing my life on the line with and the bullet has to perform and penetrate.  Can it be done?  Are there any tests that have run to prove or disprove swaging does or doesn't harm the construction of the bullet?

Sorry for the idiotic post. :oops:   I'm sure the 350 and 400 grain Hawks are fine and I'm sure the 400 grain Woodleigh is too.  Just looking for more options, I guess.

[talon]

Yukon Jack,
   First of all I'm sure there are swagers that make .411 bullets. I happen to make them with a 3S point (sort of a short semi-sharp Spitzer). My current jacket supply only permits bullets around 280-340 grains, but I can reduce .44 and .45 rifle jackets to make the heaver 350-450 grain bullets. I also study Winchesters. Did you know that there were 3 sized receivers made for the m95? There is a difference between the '06 and .405 receiver & bolt, size and strength-wise.  The Smith that converted yours should have told you this. Also, yes, you can get a Bullet reduction die to make 411s out of 416s. The die maker will want to know exactly what bullet you plan to reduce, and will want a dozen samples: bulets vary in jacket thickness and construction and these factors affect spring back as the bullet passes thru the die. A test on the reduced bullet would be to section it from tip to heal to see how much the core to jacket seperation is.  I understand that for reductions under .006" the seperation is marginal. If the core is bonded to the jacket, there will be no seperation even if the thing is flattened.

[Yukon Jack]

Talon,
Thank you for the reply.  At the time we began this project, the only newly manufactured M95 was in 30-06 and 270 that we could find for the price that made this project feasible.  Since the Hawk is based on the '06 case and is designed to operate at those pressures, we aren't concerned with the strength of the 95 action.  We didn't have to modify the bolt face.  The only fly in the ointment is the selection of strong, well constructed bullets available in .411".

I have ordered a box of the Woodleigh 400 grain soft points.  These have been used in Africa with great success on cape buffalo and the like in the old 450-400 for years, so I'm sure they will work fine for brown bear.  What is disappointing is that they are nearly $50 for 50 bullets.  Almost a dollar a pop just for the bullet.  Not much when you consider all the other expenses for a hunt, but pretty expensive for poking holes in paper when working up loads and practicing.  I do have several boxes of the Barnes X that I snapped up when I heard they were discontinuing their line, but not enough to last for a long time.  I also have a couple of boxes of the Hawk manufactured bullets with the .035" jacket and the .050" jacket in 350 grains.

I guess I have a couple of options.  One is to find my hunting loads with the X and Woodleigh bullets, then develop a practice load that duplicates those velocities with the cheaper and more available 300 grain Hornady.

Two, test the Hawks of same bullet weight of the Woodleigh and X to see if I get the same accuracy and penetration.  If so, just order a supply of the Hawks and be set.

Three, continue to scrounge up the remaining Barnes X and Swift Aframes that are still out there sitting on dealers shelves gathering dust.

I have heard that North Fork is developing a 360 grain bullet designed specifically for the 411 Hawk.  NF's quality is without question, but we are still waiting for the introduction.

Sure would be nice if Nosler would introduce a 411 Partition or get conclusive results that swaging down some of the premium 416 bullets would not effect the integrity of those bullets.

This isn't a problem without a solution by any stretch of the imagination, but just looking for the most economical solution.

Thanks again  

[talon]

As far as trusting a bullet to "save your life", that's problematic with a griz you kick out of Devil Paw. Whether the core seperates from the jacket upon impact would be the least of your worries. But, as mentioned, you would have to section one or two of the bullets you ran thru your special order ring die to see just how bad(or good) the seperation was. Die makers can only guess that there will be no major seperation as reducing bullets is not a firm science. They charge the same if the die works or not: all they guarentee is that they put their best knowledge and experience into the attempt. Either of the Corbin brothers or CH/4-D will tell you this.  As for practice bullets, just about any jacketed bullet with the weight and nose configuration that's like the operational ones you intend to use should suffice. Inexpensive .014" thick strait walled jackets perform the same as core bonded .035" H-mantels on the firing range. They also cost much less (about 10 cents each) to make. As a matter of fact, at least one authority swears that simple core bonding  duplicates, if not outperforms, other 'fancy' bullet configurations when shooting game. Core bonding would add about 1/10th of a cent in cost to that 10 cent range bullet. Are these bullets you mention Round Nosed? To a swager, it's the nose shape that's fixed, not the weight or how much blue nose exposure you want: those parameters are variable.  

[onesonek]

Hi All, Yukon, I didn't think that was silly at all.  But, what I'm about to ask, may border on Really Stupid. When I first started hunting, I bought plain factory stuff. When I took up handloading, my primary bullet used,was the Partition. Untill the X bullet appeared, which my guns had a love hate relationship with them. Some shot them well, and other wouldn't. The ones that wouldn't, I stayed with NP's.  Anyhow, over the recent past, I've found my desires to hunt with lighter guns,and more efficient moderate velocity rounds. The thoughts that cross my mind with bullets starting at 25-2600 fps, is what's best? Well,,, I concluded a boatail is needed to save all the velocity I can. To me, the "ideal" bullet at these speeds, would be a Nosler Partition Boatail. So :roll: can a boatail be swaged onto a NP???  And if so, what's it cost to set up such an operation. I have very little knowledge of swaging, and the research I did do before comming here to ask ?'s, kinda slowed when I seen dies at +$600 .  Oh well, maybe a NPBT ain't such a good  idea. onesonek

[talon]

Reforming a flat base bullet into a boat tail is problematic. The big difficulty is with one of the two punches: if the point end of the bullet were put into a blind hole of a point forming die, the feather edge of the boat tail forming punch would break after just a few bullets. If the die was formed to accept the bullet's heal end into the blind hole, the same problem would happen to the edge of the nose punch. If it were an open ended die, then both punches would have the same failure rates. This is just my observation. I don't make dies.

[onesonek]

Thanks Talon, I kinda figured it might be more than it's worth.

[JBMauser]

onesonek, In the current issue of Rifle mag.  there is an article putting boattail bullets and hunting into perspective.  The author contends the advantage of a boat tail is only seen at distances of 300yds and greater and that 99% of hunting is done well short of this mark.  He also contends the BTs basically come apart far easier than a standard flat based bullet which makes little sense for hunting applications.  He contends that in the distances one takes a hunting shot both bullets are similar in accuracy (depending on each rifle) and the plain based bullet is superior in termanil performance.  JB

[talon]

The 'ol 'cost-return' situation. Actually, a set of Rebated Boat Tail dies (most bullet die makers recommend this type over plain Boat Tails) will cost about what you cited, plus there's all those associated tools. You never mentioned the caliber: again, most bullet die makers suggest BTs and RBTs are only 'worth while' at subsonic speeds and in calibers below .30. Too, as in the case of most product marketing , the potential customer is convenced that a certain product is exactly what is needed rather than a group of similar products. This is not to say that the advertised product doesn't work, but sometimes you pay 10 times the price for something that is no better for your needs than another similar item. That is why some of us are really convenced that if we use a certain brand of bullet, constructed a certain way, that we'll always succeed. And, we do... but that does not prove other similar (and less expensive) products are technically inferior. According to some, a bonded core bullet, which is really easy and inexpensive to make, performs on game just as well as any fancy, complex constructed, bullet ever made. As JB Mauser mentioned, BTs (and RBTs) have their place, but unless you are shooting 'chucks or paper at 400 yds they are not necessary...and may be counter-productive. Unless you need a bullet that will go thru 3' of hide, bone and muscle (this calls for a solid copper bullet), a bonded core bullet with thin, med, or thick jacket will do just as well, or at least so well that the shooter or the target won't be able to tell the difference. And, the direct cost for making a bonded core bullet: from 9 to 12 cents if labor is not considered.

[onesonek]

Thanks for input All, I realize that  BT's, really are more effective at long range. But don't it also hold true, that they shed velocity less than flat bases, at shorter ranges. Or are all my puter programs screwy. I know the programs aren't exact. But you get substanially different data when you alter the input on the drag coeficient from flat, to standard BT, or VLD BT's.    onesonek

[talon]

Yes, BTs and RBTs are more Drag resistant. But less Drag (ie, higher velocity... more potential impact energy) is just one of many items to consider in choosing a bullet. Those tables you reference probably do not show the 'scatter effect' of a box of BTs as compared to Flat Base bullets (all else being equal) as they print on paper at 200 yards, or barrel life due to gas cutting inherent in an imperfect seal those sloped walls at the heal BTs provide. BTs (better yet, RBTs) have their place, but for 95% of  American game, a FB bullet, much easier and less expensive to buy or make, is very satisfactory. Perhaps Elk, goats or sheep taken at 350 yards with a 7mm or 30 cal bullet would be an exception, but at 6000' + elevation there's not much air to effect drag that much. While 'dogs, 'chucks and paper aren't game, they are the sort of targets, at 250-400 yards, where BTs could come in handy. BTs, and RBTs are the only thing to use at 1000 yards. At pages 183-186, in Corbin's #8  Hand Book of Bullet Swaging, this subject is well detailed.

[onesonek]

Hi Talon, Thanks again. I hadn't really heard of the "scatter effect", but thinking about it. It makes sense, remembering that it takes longer range to put them to "sleep".  I do know about the gas cutting though, one pro-con things, one needs to consider.  And I agree, that in 99% of the time, the flat base will do what is needed.