.500S&W and bear?

[fatelk]

I got a call from a friend, asking what I knew about the .500 S&W (never fired one). He wondered how they worked for bear.

It seems that he recently had a failure on a bear with a .357 magnum, and decided he needs a bigger gun. Since he doesn't want to be embarrassed again, he wants to go all the way and get the biggest.

My recommendation was to get a .44 mag, maybe a SRH with 300gr boolits. I really think he would carry and shoot the big .500 for a short time and realize he made a big mistake. We're not in grizzly country; he shot a black bear with a 2" bbl .357 mag using JHP ammo of some sort.

I'm not a hunter, but I'm inclined to think that there would be a world of difference between .357 125gr JHP, and .44 mag 300gr cast on a bear?

[leftiye]

Not too surprised about the .357 not getting it (flame on!). Go at least .44 mag, I'd say. Next time it may be more than terminal performance he has to worry about. Wounded bear time is probly time for better medicine than a .44.

[badbob454]

do it really right , 454 casull , goes through 5 feet of meat and bone !! and go for the 6 shot
Super Redhawk ,;; the bfr and tarus are 5 shot

[nicholst55]

I'd just carry a rifle...

[stubshaft]

It would depend also on your friends ability to shoot HEAVY recoiling handguns. A hot loaded 44 mag. is the starting point in terms of recoil. If he is an experienced handgunner then a 500 S&W is a great caliber, so is the 45LC and 454 Casull.

[harvester]

Get the 454 and then if not a reloader he can still go up or down in power with 45colt or 454.

[7br]

Weight is also a consideration. The xframes are massive guns. A .357 on the belt is more better than a .600 nitro express in the safe.

[fatelk]

He's a stout guy, but I wouldn't say an experienced handgunner. I'm pretty sure the .500 would be a mistake for him; way over the top.

We talked a bit about the .454, but I'm still inclined to think a good .44 would be best for him. These aren't grizzlies, and I doubt he's likely to run into many more bears. I didn't ask about the specifics of his taking a few shots at a bear with a .357 snubby. He's a pretty straight-arrow guy, so I'm sure it's an interesting story. He does hunt a lot; maybe a .454 would be his best choice. I gave him my two cents worth. I told him I would like to talk him into a .500 because I'd like to shoot one, but I think it would be a mistake.

Is a typical .454 much heavier/bulkier than a Ruger Redhawk?

[Whitworth]

You can't go wrong with a .44 mag or .45 Colt. That X-frame is a lot of gun for the neophyte.

[mannyCA]

Don't know if anyone has seen this story...

http://www.takdriver.com/showthread.php?t=723

[bigboredad]

I would definately be opposed to a .500 simply because of the weight. there is no doubt it could stop a bear but he needs to remember for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction. I have shot the .500 fully loaded with 49gr of lil gun and a 350gr jacketed bullet after 4 I handed it back it is such a big gun that I could not get a proper grip so it bruised the hell out of a bone for my thumb. For me if it wasn,t a hunting gun I would go for a Ruger alaskan in .454 one because I like the .454 two he can load .45 colt ammo when he is practicing three I Like the Alaskan is has good balance and fits my great and the trigger on the one I got play with was excellent but I have never shot one. I have really come to love the .45 caliber sized bullets and what you can do with them from the light cowboy loads all the up to the heavt nuclear casull loads. Sorry for the ranble But this is just one mans opinion

[Whitworth]

Don't know if anyone has seen this story...

http://www.takdriver.com/showthread.php?t=723

That's Greg Brush and that happened about two years ago.

[44man]

The .500 is a BIG gun, not a carry, backup but a primary hunting gun.
The .475 is large and heavy in the BFR. Primary hunting gun.
Make the guns shorter and lighter and you will over shoot from recoil so the old toothless bear will gum you for hours.
Unless you automatically can handle the gun, forget the big stuff and use a .44, .45 or .454.
When a light, little big bore almost busts your head with each shot, stay home.
The huge guns can't be brought into play fast enough either unless it is in your hand.

[429421Cowboy]

Way too much gun!! I carry my Super Blackhawk with HC 340 grain boolits running at about 1450fps courtesy of our friends at Buffalo Bore (made in Montana!) gotta love the " .44 Magnum +P+" designation on the box. Not quite a .454 but i have no doubts about effectiveness. I know of one gentleman who used a .41 mag on a grizzly that mauled him as well as many accounts of the .44 and even .357 being adequite in times of need. And we're only talking about black bears here! I work and play in grizzly county and i really don't worry about it. And most of us agree that its the 200 pound "garbage bear" that is likely to give you trouble not the maneater griz. A look around most elk camps will reveal at least one holstered Redhawk that got left in camp after the first day. The only gun that counts is the one you have with you. Then its a matter of how well you shoot it. I feel confidant with my SBH and i trust my life on it everyday. I'd rather have it with my mid range Unique loads to face down a bear then all the power of a half ounce of H-110 in a gun that was to expensive or to scary to shoot enough to be truely good with it. I agree with the suggestion of something along the lines of a Redhawk Alaskan in .454 or .44 mag if he really thinks he needs a dedicated bear gun.

[bowfishn]

A lot of good advice. If I was going out hunting large dangerous game with just a handgun I may choose the 500 S&W, but even though I think it has awesome power I think I would still take the 454 in a SRH. I personally chose to go with the 44 mag in the SRH over the 454 that I had a few years back. The 310 grain cast GC bullets I shoot out of my SRH at better than 1500 fps are more than adequate for my needs at this point. I use the longer barrel on my SRH for hunting only needs, a shorter barrel between 2.5" and 7.5"in a BH, SBH or SRH would be a much better choice in my opinion for a carry gun that would get used just in case. As stated before if it is not on you it does you no good. Caliber choice would be 44 mag, 45 LC (Ruger only loads) or 454.

[SoCalLove]

Don't know if anyone has seen this story...

http://www.takdriver.com/showthread.php?t=723

Just read the story, that's pretty intense with a happy ending!

- Don't know about the S&W500 being too much gun and all, I'm 5'9" about 155lbs I have 2 S&W 500s. I have the 4" with muzzle break and the JR 5" PC model, they shoot great I handle it just fine for my frame size. I shoot about 50 rounds when I go out using 400gr magtech and Winchester 400gr platinum tips and a few other plinking hand loads. I love shooting those guns over all the others I've shot, just wear some gloves I use workout gloves since they are well padded and have a wrist strap for support. After you shoot the 500, don't really need gloves for anything else on the table. It's a great gun and I carry it on my waist for along with 40 rounds in an ammo pouch through out my shooting session which is about 5 hours with friends and family and lots of guns to go through.

[cbrick]

He shot a bear with a 2" 357 loaded with HP's? Really?

Did he get ate up by the p*ssed off bear?

Rick

[Groo]

Groo here
Here I must side with 44man The X frame S&W is just Too big for anything but a primary gun
I have a 4in..
I would much rather carry my Blackhawk conversions [or FA] or a factory N frame S&W.
The thing now in the great white north is the 10mm in an auto..
Fair power, and bullet size and weight, easy caring size and weight
and easy to take apart to clean and Dry when it ends up in the snow or under water
[When you go in the river]
Our instructer at Thunder Ranch { 1996 } was one of the guys that
laid out the oil pipeline and wrote the book for the oil companies on critter defence..
12 ga pumps-- 45-70 levers and magmum handguns..
The handguns were not for bear defence as a bear can out run a horse over a short space.
you will not get to yours but your partner might get to his [if he did not have his long gun]
run up and shoot said bear in the ear and off you..

[fatelk]

He shot a bear with a 2" 357 loaded with HP's? Really?
I'm sure there's a there, but I'm guessing it's one he would rather not have told. I'm not a hunter, but I did tell him that .357 mag hollow points are NOT bear medicine. There's a big difference between a .357 mag 125gr HP and a .44 mag 310gr hard lead slug.

It's due to the "failure" of the .357 mag that he wanted to step up to the .500 mag. I told him that's a little like stepping up from a moped to a big Harley; there are intermediate calibers that may be more appropriate for him. I recommended he try one before spending a bunch of money.

That said, if he shoots one and decides he loves the big .500 magnum and can handle the weight, recoil, and cost; more power to him!

[John Ross]

It's due to the "failure" of the .357 mag that he wanted to step up to the .500 mag. I told him that's a little like stepping up from a moped to a big Harley; there are intermediate calibers that may be more appropriate for him. I recommended he try one before spending a bunch of money.

That said, if he shoots one and decides he loves the big .500 magnum and can handle the weight, recoil, and cost; more power to him!

Have him try a factory 4" 500 or one of mine (if he can find someone nearby who has one) with Cor-Bon .500 Special loads, or a handloaded Mag round sending 400-450 grain slugs out at 1000-1100 FPS. Caliber and bullet weight are your friends when the game can eat you...

The .44 Mag with 300+ grain cast bullets was touted as the best bear medicine in a packable handgun when that was the best we had. Now we've got something a lot better...

[Whitworth]

The .44 Mag with 300+ grain cast bullets was touted as the best bear medicine in a packable handgun when that was the best we had. Now we've got something a lot better...


You can say that again!

[Lloyd Smale]

If he has to ask its the wrong gun. A gun like a 500 is for an experienced handgunner. Not something you can master with a couple boxes of factory ammo.

[Whitworth]

If he has to ask its the wrong gun. A gun like a 500 is for an experienced handgunner. Not something you can master with a couple boxes of factory ammo.

Point well made, Lloyd. Definitely a gun that requires some trigger time.

[cottonstalk]

The 44mag can handle any black bear any where with the right bullet and shot placement.We have some of the biggest in NC and the 44 dumps them on their head on a regular bases.Any good projectile in the 265 -300gr range is plenty.I have taken and seen taken several with no problems.

[fatelk]

Well, he went ahead and bought a .500 S&W. I think he saw the logic in a .44 mag instead, but really he just wanted a .500. He got the one with a really short barrel, but now he is getting sticker shock looking at ammo and components.

Any suggestions for good short-barrel loads?

[Bret4207]

I'm sure there's a there, but I'm guessing it's one he would rather not have told. I'm not a hunter, but I did tell him that .357 mag hollow points are NOT bear medicine. There's a big difference between a .357 mag 125gr HP and a .44 mag 310gr hard lead slug.

It's due to the "failure" of the .357 mag that he wanted to step up to the .500 mag. I told him that's a little like stepping up from a moped to a big Harley; there are intermediate calibers that may be more appropriate for him. I recommended he try one before spending a bunch of money.

That said, if he shoots one and decides he loves the big .500 magnum and can handle the weight, recoil, and cost; more power to him!

There's also a world of difference between a 357 125 jacketed and a 357 with a 180 cast. If this is black bears he was just using the wrong ammo. Now it sounds like he's got the wrong gun. Standby, he'll probably be selling the gun soon and you can get a good price and trade it in on something usable. Flame on, as Leftyie says!

[Whitworth]

Yeah, I think the leap from the .357 to the .500 was a bit drastic. The problem was obviously in the choice of bullets/ammo, and not a caliber issue. Not that a .357 would be my first choice -- or second, or third for that matter, the simple reality is that loaded correctly (read: heavy, large meplat, hardcast), he would have had more than enough penetration to adequately dispatched the bear. JMHO.

[white eagle]

this post reminds me of my B I L
he has a smith 357 he carries for bear protection
I asked what he had in the chambers and he said 125 gr
something or other
I had a good chuckle
let him know the err of his ways
recoil sensitive was the term he used
I have another name for it

[DrB]

Edit: saw Bret's post... should have conserved electrons and said +1 Bret. :) /Edit

Sorry if I missed it, but I didn't see anything posted that indicated the fellow even connected or where. Moot point now, but you can shoot a bear with ANY cartridge, and if your shot placement is poor enough the bear will get away.

What's a typical black bear in the east? I'd guess 250 (if that) is probably average in the southeast (but I haven't got much black bear experience), and the couple I've seen looked smaller?

I do think an adequate sectional density 357 (say a 180 grain design with a wide meplat) pushed with a stout load of 2400 would do just fine out of a 4 to 6 inch barrel. If the guy isn't experienced and maybe not getting accurate shots off, going to a 500 (especially a short barreled one) is the dead wrong thing to do. it's going to cost a pile of money up front, he's unlikely to afford to practice as much, and if he didn't start out with a flinch/recoil problem, he'll probably have one in short order.

IMHO, that was a bad call...

Best regards,
DrB

[Bret4207]

Dr B-I'd say the average Black Bear in the east is more like 150. A big male might go 250. The 350-600 lbs bears aren't your average woods bears. They either have a municipal dump or carcass dump site or some farms nearby that are losing a lot of corn silage.

Whitworth- it doens't need to be HARDCAST. An ACWW 35x240 went the length of a draft horse carcass and that's a lot bigger and tougher than any black bear body. A 35x180 at 11-1200 fps should have no trouble going in and out and doing plenty of damage while inside. Boost it to 13-1400 and its even more better. Of course shot placement is key with any cartridge.

[RobS]

Dr B-I'd say the average Black Bear in the east is more like 150. A big male might go 250. The 350-600 lbs bears aren't your average woods bears. They either have a municipal dump or carcass dump site or some farms nearby that are losing a lot of corn silage.

Whitworth- it doens't need to be HARDCAST. An ACWW 35x240 went the length of a draft horse carcass and that's a lot bigger and tougher than any black bear body. A 35x180 at 11-1200 fps should have no trouble going in and out and doing plenty of damage while inside. Boost it to 13-1400 and its even more better. Of course shot placement is key with any cartridge.

Bret, I love it!!!! Great choice of words, it's been a while since I've laughed due to wording.

[Whitworth]

Dr B-I'd say the average Black Bear in the east is more like 150. A big male might go 250. The 350-600 lbs bears aren't your average woods bears. They either have a municipal dump or carcass dump site or some farms nearby that are losing a lot of corn silage.

Whitworth- it doens't need to be HARDCAST. An ACWW 35x240 went the length of a draft horse carcass and that's a lot bigger and tougher than any black bear body. A 35x180 at 11-1200 fps should have no trouble going in and out and doing plenty of damage while inside. Boost it to 13-1400 and its even more better. Of course shot placement is key with any cartridge.

I was stating my choice and preference, nothing more, nothing less.

Y'all need to come to North Carolina if your bears average 150-lbs! LOL!:kidding:

[fatelk]

On a totally unrelated note: I drive a lot, and my old Saturn just doesn't have the power and speed to pass big trucks very quickly. What do you all think of a Lamborghini?:)


If this is black bears he was just using the wrong ammo. Now it sounds like he's got the wrong gun.
I agree, but in reality I think he just wanted the .500, justified or not. Sometimes wanting is justification enough. As we were discussing the price of ammo, brass, and lead, I'm pretty sure I was detecting some buyer's remorse.

One thing interesting he said in justification of buying it that I thought was odd: he said he looked around for a .44 for quite a while before buying the .500. He didn't like the ergonomics of the Ruger, and he said he couldn't find a S&W model 29 or 629 for under $800. Are they really going that high nowadays? I've had four of them over the years, and never paid more than half that.

[Bret4207]

I was stating my choice and preference, nothing more, nothing less.

Y'all need to come to North Carolina if your bears average 150-lbs! LOL!:kidding:

No prob, just a pet peeve, this HARDCAST thing.

What do you think your bears average- I mean the woods bears, not the ones shot over bait piles where you wait for the bigger one, but your average sized live bear? All the deer I saw in NC were fairly small, although not as small as the dog like critters I saw in Mississippi.

[GabbyM]

125 grain HP from a 357 magnum IMHO would give a six inch penetration on a bear.
Use a cast 180grain over a typical load of H110 and you’d shoot all the way through most bears.

Lyman 4th has some loads for the 460 that look shoot able even to me. Trail boss is used for loads a 45 colt could reach. Thus you could get some practice and fun in with plain based .452“ bullets. I have the Lyman 325 grain #452651 gas check bullet if he wants to load it up for bear.

Please explain to your friend that if he holds his fingers out over the cylinder gap when firing full power loads he will loose his fingers. With his short barrel he is less likely to do that. With the huge long barrel guns guys put there left hand out to prop it up then whack. About like a radial arm saw as far as where to put your fingers.

If it were mine I"d never shot it with any laod over 35,000 psi. The start laod of 28.0 grains of Enforcer pushes the 325gr cast at 1,494 fps with 31,000 psi. I'd just call that good enough in North America. There is a trail boss laod of 8.2gr under the 325gr for 824 fps at 16,300 psi. They use a ten inch universal reciever for velocity test so they'd be far overstated.

[Whitworth]

No prob, just a pet peeve, this HARDCAST thing.

What do you think your bears average- I mean the woods bears, not the ones shot over bait piles where you wait for the bigger one, but your average sized live bear? All the deer I saw in NC were fairly small, although not as small as the dog like critters I saw in Mississippi.

The "hardcast thing" is a pet peave? Do you recall where you are posting? :bigsmyl2:

North Carolina has the largest bears on record in the lower-48. Not legal to shoot them over bait. We run 'em with dogs. I don't know what the average weight is, but you can pick and choose when you run 'em with dogs as well. A buddy who I hunt with has taken a number over 400-lbs. Last season I saw one taken that went over 500-lbs.

[Maximumbob54]

No prob, just a pet peeve, this HARDCAST thing.

What do you think your bears average- I mean the woods bears, not the ones shot over bait piles where you wait for the bigger one, but your average sized live bear? All the deer I saw in NC were fairly small, although not as small as the dog like critters I saw in Mississippi.

As a "Boolit Bub" I can't say I speak with much experience but I thought the main point of "hardcast" in something like a dangerous game (bear) load was to hold the bullet in its shape to better use the SWC or flat meplate intact during its travel through hide, muscle, and bone. Is this not the case? I doubt something like a Randy Garret .44 magnum is too accurate at a distance but I would guess it would be like a Star Trek phaser set on "drill a bloody hole". :confused:

[69daytona]

I agree with John. The 500 in a 4" gun loaded with factory loads does not recoil any more that my 6" 44 mag with heavy loaded 300gr keith style boolits. Johns guns are a bit lighter and maybe someday I will have one.
With the selection of molds we have for the 500 and a little reloading the 500 can go from a ***** cat to a lion. Just like in my cars there is no replacement for displacement

[Whitworth]

I agree with John. The 500 in a 4" gun loaded with factory loads does not recoil any more that my 6" 44 mag with heavy loaded 300gr keith style boolits. Johns guns are a bit lighter and maybe someday I will have one.
With the selection of molds we have for the 500 and a little reloading the 500 can go from a ***** cat to a lion. Just like in my cars there is no replacement for displacement

I have to disagree. I have a 6.5-inch .500 here and with factory loads (Hornady 500s, 400gr Double Tap, 500 grain Grizzly Cartridge loads, and 440 grain CorBons), it kicks quite a bit more than any of my .44 mags and I shoot nothing but heavy loads through them. It's not the hardest kicking revolver I own or have shot, but it's not a revolver for the neophyte by any stretch.

[jwp475]

No prob, just a pet peeve, this HARDCAST thing.
What do you think your bears average- I mean the woods bears, not the ones shot over bait piles where you wait for the bigger one, but your average sized live bear? All the deer I saw in NC were fairly small, although not as small as the dog like critters I saw in Mississippi.



This is a HARD CAST BULLET site. Anytime I am serious about hunting with one of my revolver I will always load a wide meplat hardcast. Why? BECAUSE THEY WORK TO PERFECTION

[waksupi]

This is a HARD CAST BULLET site.


Huh? I see many more recommendations over the years of NOT so hard. My personal experience tells me, as soft as you can use for any application.

Hard cast was come up with by the guys selling commercial bullets. It saved damage to boolits in shipping, and tried to cover up that they didn't fit a firearm properly.

[jwp475]

Huh? I see many more recommendations over the years of NOT so hard.



Your point?

[waksupi]

Your point?

It appeared you believed that hard cast was the only way to go. It is not. Why can we shoot aircooled wheel weight bullets at over 2000 fps in rifles with no problems, and people think they need something harder for pistols?

[Whitworth]

It appeared you believed that hard cast was the only way to go. It is not. Why can we shoot aircooled wheel weight bullets at over 2000 fps in rifles with no problems, and people think they need something harder for pistols?

Well, in my experience on game, I have seen the nose of too many hardcast bullets deform because they are driven too fast. They work better when you slow them down a bit. Degrade the nose, and penetration is compromised. Personally I feel that straightline penetration is king. But that's just me.

[jwp475]

It appeared you believed that hard cast was the only way to go. It is not. Why can we shoot aircooled wheel weight bullets at over 2000 fps in rifles with no problems, and people think they need something harder for pistols?



IMHO Wheel weights fall into the hard cast catorgory. They are much harder than lead bullets

[maglvr]

Your friends biggest mistakes, were nothing more than a few poor choices, starting with a 2" barrel, and ending with a JHP bullet in a worthless weight(for heavy boned critters).
A "TRUE .357" is quite a black bear stopper, and by "true .357" I am not talking about any of the watered down factory, **** ammo. made today, that is no more a true .357 magnum than a .38spl is.
The original loading of a 158gr. boolit, traveling at over 1500fps. is more than enough for ANY black bear!
As are heavier boolits utilizing near max or max pressure charges of slow burning powders.
And a longer barrel certainly adds to the picture!
Todays store bought loadings are all but a joke(as are many of the loads in modern loading manuals, as far as i'm concerned).
But as the saying goes, "There was a time". ;)


1935
Major Douglas Wesson

Antelope - 200 yards (2 shots)

Elk - 130 yards (1 shot)

Moose - 100 yards (1 shot)

Grizzly Bear - 135 yards (1 shot)

The Antelope was hit the first time at 125 yards. It ran, stopped and was shot the second time at 200 yards. The second shot killed it.

The Bull Elk was killed with one shot through the lungs.

The Moose was shot in the chest near the base of the neck. It cut the 2nd rib, passed through both lungs, sheared the 8th rib on the off side and stopped just under the hide. No follow-up shot was required.

These animals were taken on a Fall hunt in Wyoming, near the West entrance of Yellowstone Park. The Grizzly was taken later in Canada.

The above game was taken using factory loads which were a 158 gr. bullet at 1515 fps from an 8 3/4" barreled S&W producing 812 ft. lbs of muzzle energy. (S&W later shortened the barrels to 8 3/8" as we have today)

To those who criticized, the Major replied that they "..had not the slightest conception of what we have accomplished in ballistics.." - a statement that still applies today.

[cbrick]

This is a HARD CAST BULLET site.

I spent an hour thinking this over and came up completely empty. I cannot think of a single thing that would give you such an idea.

The very term "hardcast" is evil and pollutes the mind of new casters and buyers of commercial cast.

This is a "hardcast bullet" site? Nonesense!

Rick

[waksupi]

The very term "hardcast" is evil and pollutes the mind of new casters and buyers of commercial cast.


Rick

That was my point, also.

[Whitworth]

Woa, now you've lost me completely. How is there anything evil associated with the term hardcast? It's a cast bullet that's hard, in contrast to a cast bullet that is soft. What's the issue? And no, I am not being combative, just trying to undrestand the emotion attached to the term hardcast.

[cbrick]

Not an emotion, simply a statement based in reality. Very simply because it leads the inexperienced to believe that a cast bullet HAS to be harder than the hubs of h*ll or it will lead the bore. The truth is that too hard is the cause of leading far more often than is too soft. It puts forth the notion that harder is better. It is not, it is only harder and can cause its own set of problems.

Rick

[Whitworth]

I think it is important to draw the disctinction between a hard lead bullet and a pure lead, or soft bullet. I think the distinction is very important. That said, I think you need to also warn against too hard a bullet as they become brittle and in hunting situations, this could be the difference between collecting your animal or not, or getting chewed on by an unhappy and wounded animal. Of course if someone is merely punching paper, it's not critical at all.

[cbrick]

Very easy to make a bullet far too hard without adding brittleness. Brittleness mostly comes from too high of an antimony percentage yet a 3% Sb alloy can be HT to over 30 BHN.

Too hard can be critical for paper punching given that too hard can cause leading. True the paper target will not chew on you but you still have a bore to clean the lead out of.

The simple fact remains that the term "hardcast" is poison to new casters that hear the word all over everything cast bullet. It is a very false premise that "hardcast is better, it is not in almost all applications.

The term "hardcast" is evil and pollutes the mind of new casters and buyers of commercial cast plain and simple.

It seems that your using the term hardcast for anything that is not pure lead, that would be very mis-leading if not inaccurate.

Rick

[Whitworth]

I think this is much ado about nothing. Typically we cast our bullets to about 20 - 22 BHN -- for hunting, and they perform admirably. This is what I would consider hardcast and yes, they are wheelweights that are water dropped. I think y'all are splittin' a fine frog's hair with this battle of semantics. But hey, whatever gets you through the night.......:bigsmyl2:

Newbies need to take everything they read on the internet with a grain of salt anyhow. I'm not for misleading the prospective new caster of fine lead bullets, but in some cases they just need to wade in and figure things out through trial and error. But, for decades the term "hardcast" has been used and I nor anyone I know involved in this game has had trouble making the distinction. JMHO.

But don't you think the "evil" is a little over the top?

Again, not being confrontational, just discussin.'

[waksupi]

I consider hard cast to start in at around 16-17 Bn. Most companies selling hard cast, are beyond that. They have mis-led novice cast boolit shooters, letting them believe the boolits were so hard, there was no way they could lead their bores. Well, that works fine, if the bore/boolit dimensions match up. Otherwise, it is total nonsense, and you will have a lead plated bore. You will know not why, and never shoot cast again, and warning all innocents not to ever shoot them.
Hard cast do have their place, and it is mostly in the range of over 2000 fps. My favorite load in my favorite rifle is at 2190 fps, with air cooled wheel weights, that should be in the 12-14 Bn range. When I want to go over 2400 fps, I have always hardened them a bit, just on general purposes.
To figure out your necessary hardness, take the first two numbers in the fps, and subtract 2. This will be REAL close to the optimum hardness required for that particular application. There are of course exceptions, and the more you learn about cast bullets, the more you can stretch the limits towards a softer boolit.
Just because it is an alloy, it isn't necessarily hard cast.

[Whitworth]

Over 2,000 fps? Waksupi, do you shoot game with revolvers? I am asking as I have found that bone can damage the nose of a 21 BHN bullet at velocities much lower than 2,000 fps, thereby diminishing penetration potential. Most of the commercial bullet/ammo manufacturers I deal with don't produce bullets harder than 21-22 BHN. In my experience, leading is more a result of an improperly sized bullet to the bore than it is hardness.

[cbrick]

I think this is much ado about nothing. Typically we cast our bullets to about 20 - 22 BHN

No, we don't, you might but hardly everyone, as hard as I get anything is 18 BHN and that's only in a couple of loads.


Newbies need to take everything they read on the internet with a grain of salt anyhow. I'm not for misleading the prospective new caster of fine lead bullets, but in some cases they just need to wade in and figure things out through trial and error.

Truth is that newbies do take to heart what they read on the internet, in magazines and on boxes of commercial cast bullets. The term hardcast is all over the place and is incorrect and is misleading at the very best.


But don't you think the "evil" is a little over the top?

No, I do not. Just as waksupi said, once the bore is leaded and they have no idea why they never shoot cast again, and then spend the rest of their lives warning all innocents not to ever shoot them because the leading is very difficult to remove and accuracy is terrible. Yes, I call that an evil term and that is exactly why.

I have never seen a written in stone paper that gives a definintion of soft, medium, hard. My own that I use for myself is:

Soft - 5-9 BHN
Medium - 10-14 BHN (the vast majority of my shooting)
Hard - 15-19 BHN
Diamonds - 20+ BHN (in other words, hardcast and in the vast majority of cast bullet shooting un-needed and in many cases detrimental)

Just because its an alloy does not mean its "hardcast". That would be a very misleading and inaccurate use of the term. To use the term hardcast in this way the definition of soft, medium, hard would look like this:

Soft - 5-8
9+ - Hardcast

Not being confrontational, just discussin. :mrgreen:

Rick

[GLynn41]

as far as i am concerned this is a "cast boolit" site period and that cover it all- and for bear there is a nother choice --I did not see mentioned--.41 magnum-one of the guides in Maine uses one and the remiongton SP factory round says it works just fine

[Bret4207]

The "hardcast thing" is a pet peave? Do you recall where you are posting? :bigsmyl2:

North Carolina has the largest bears on record in the lower-48. Not legal to shoot them over bait. We run 'em with dogs. I don't know what the average weight is, but you can pick and choose when you run 'em with dogs as well. A buddy who I hunt with has taken a number over 400-lbs. Last season I saw one taken that went over 500-lbs.

I've seen several over 500lbs. I can;t seem to find the State record. The largest one I ever saw was 581 lbs, shot with a 38 Special factory lead RN as it came through a camp door. One well placed shot was all it took.

[Bret4207]

On the "HARDCAST" thing- No, this is not a hardcast site, it's a site dedicated to obtaining the best from cast over a wide range of velocity and pressure in an equally wide range of guns of all types. In 1997 when I first started coming here, (it was Shooters.com back then), most of us young guys were all doing the same thing- trying to produce rock hard alloys because HARD HAD to be BETTER. Thankfully there were guys like Felix, Chargar, BruceB, Shuz, Floodgate, etc that were patient and led us along. I don't recall who it was that finally got the light to click for me, but one day I just realized that my rockhard 35ish Bhn weren't going to shoot any better no matter what load I used. That's when the light came on and I started LEARNING instead of thinking there was a simple answer that involved harder and harder alloys. When we finally settled in here there was a genuine struggle to get the hardcast thing tromped down to the level it belonged- somewhere in the 3rd level or so of importance. What's more, we did pretty good job of hashing things out amongst ourselves. It got to the point people were really thinking and working with medium to softer alloys and finding out they worked just dandy in many to most applications. We finally got hardness relegated to what it is- a tool, not an answer. Then for some reason the hardcast thing started cropping up again. Maybe it's the sheer number of new guys, I dunno. All I know is we're getting right back to where we were. So I get a little frustrated after all the effort that was put forth to see the same ambiguous advertising term crop up again. Hard isn't better, just different. I actually tried to get a solid definition of soft, medium or hard and couldn't get any kind of consensus.

No offense intended, but I hope you understand why some of us get a little burr under the saddle.

[waksupi]

Over 2,000 fps? Waksupi, do you shoot game with revolvers? I am asking as I have found that bone can damage the nose of a 21 BHN bullet at velocities much lower than 2,000 fps, thereby diminishing penetration potential. Most of the commercial bullet/ammo manufacturers I deal with don't produce bullets harder than 21-22 BHN. In my experience, leading is more a result of an improperly sized bullet to the bore than it is hardness.

Yes, I have shot quite a bit of game with revolvers over the years. The 2000 fps reference is for rifles, for comparison of Bn hardness between the applications.
Are you saying handguns have a need for harder boolits than a rifle, at higher velocity? I don't think so. And I see absolutely no need for a handgun boolit in the 20-22 Bn range.
I have no idea what happened to the noses of my boolits, as I never recovered one since every one has passed completely through, regardless of angle. The deer or antelope would be laying close to where they both met, though.

[Whitworth]

Yes, I have shot quite a bit of game with revolvers over the years. The 2000 fps reference is for rifles, for comparison of Bn hardness between the applications.
Are you saying handguns have a need for harder boolits than a rifle, at higher velocity? I don't think so. And I see absolutely no need for a handgun boolit in the 20-22 Bn range.
I have no idea what happened to the noses of my boolits, as I never recovered one since every one has passed completely through, regardless of angle. The deer or antelope would be laying close to where they both met, though.

I wouldn't expect a deer or antelope to stop a cast bullet. Hell, I've never even recovered a lightweight, jacked hollow-point on a deer. When the game gets bigger and more densely built, it's a consideration, particularly if you go through bone.

Veral Smith doesn't consider a bullet a hardcast until it reaches a minimum of 20 BHN.

Again, just discussin'

[Bret4207]

And, with all due respect to Veral, does that mean that defines "hardcast"? What term does a 30+ Bhn boolit get? Super Duper Hardcast? I've shot the length of a draft horse carcass and had the boolit exit and it was straight WW. So if you want to cling to an ambiguous advertising term as a definition of an effective alloy Bhn that's fine. But since "hardcast" and Bhn alone does nothing whatsoever to describe the make up or performance of an alloy, I will continue to look for a better term.

[Whitworth]

Actually, I hold Veral's opinions in high regard. There has to be a point where you draw a line for reference (and perhaps for reference only) IMO, but I see a lot of this as an argument of semantics.

Now, without the tension that seems to be present here, please explain to me your thoughts on a scaling system. Why? For reference only. Y'all seem to be a bit divided here. When the public has been fed the term "hardcast" for virtually decades, how do you go about changing that public perception? It obviously seems to bother some of you that the term is used. Please explain for my edification and that of others who may not know. Thanks in advance.

[waksupi]

The best way to change public perception, is for people to try the commercial hard cast bullets. Then after they meet the failure so many do, those who are really serious about learning how to shoot cast, will eventually find this board.

[cbrick]

Now, without the tension that seems to be present here, please explain to me your thoughts on a scaling system.

You have the wrong perception, no tension involved, simply explaining why the term hardcast is misleading and incorrect.

A scaling system? I did if your refering to what I consider soft, medium and hard. See post 56 of this thread.


When the public has been fed the term "hardcast" for virtually decades, how do you go about changing that public perception? It obviously seems to bother some of you that the term is used. Please explain for my edification and that of others who may not know. Thanks in advance.

Yes, the public has been fed the term hardcast for years by gun scribes that have no better idea of cast bullets than their audience and also by commercial casters. An advertising campaign doesn't make it so. If you have a television you must be well aware that every single auto insurance company is $450.00 cheaper than every single other auto insurance company. That is an advertising campaign, does it make it so?

Bother us that the term is used? It is an incorrect and very misleading term. I'll say it again, it pollutes the minds of those buying commercial cast bullets and more importantly those that are trying to get into casting. It is responsible for a huge amount of confusion and many would be casters giving up in failure.

Here is a definition of hardcast . . . Confusing, misleading, inacurrate, evil.

No tension or emotion attached as you've mentioned, just explaining.

Rick

[Bret4207]

Actually, I hold Veral's opinions in high regard. There has to be a point where you draw a line for reference (and perhaps for reference only) IMO, but I see a lot of this as an argument of semantics.

Now, without the tension that seems to be present here, please explain to me your thoughts on a scaling system. Why? For reference only. Y'all seem to be a bit divided here. When the public has been fed the term "hardcast" for virtually decades, how do you go about changing that public perception? It obviously seems to bother some of you that the term is used. Please explain for my edification and that of others who may not know. Thanks in advance.

I hold many of Verals opinions in high regards too, but he's not God. And yes, it is semantics, it's defining a term that is entirely ambiguous. Now go back and read post #59 in which everything you just asked about was already covered.

BTW- public perception doesn't mean a hill of beans. Here, at the cutting edge of cast boolit shooting semantics and definitions matter a great deal, otherwise we'd be shooting bullet heads from shells out of automatic revolvers.

[waksupi]

I wouldn't expect a deer or antelope to stop a cast bullet. Hell, I've never even recovered a lightweight, jacked hollow-point on a deer. When the game gets bigger and more densely built, it's a consideration, particularly if you go through bone.

Veral Smith doesn't consider a bullet a hardcast until it reaches a minimum of 20 BHN.

Again, just discussin'

Well, I have shot elk, bison, and bear with air cooled WW boolits, and they worked just fine, too. They don't stop boolits, either.

[429421Cowboy]

:hijack: Guys, they are boolits, they were made to be shot! i'm 18 and i've been around hunting and shooting my whole life but if i was new to this I'd be downright scared by some of the posts on this forum because things get over complicated. There is an immense amount of combined knowledge on this site and i consider it the finest online learing tool i know of. So please lets chill out,:drinks: and remember what they're for, boolits, bullets, glooblits, wax bullets, roundballs, HC's, HP's, SP's, SWC's, WC's, HBWC's, K's, WFP's, and yes, RP's and the lowly "hi-tech jacketed hollowpoint. :Fire::guntootsmiley:[smilie=w:

[waksupi]

Nothing cranky here, just telling people what we have found over the years.

[fatelk]

I guess this thread has drifted far enough from the original subject of .500 for bear, so I'll comment about water quenched bullets.

I had some .44 mag 310gr rounds loaded up, going about 1100fps+ in a 6" Smith, and just shot 3 rounds into a thick old catalog. These boolits were cast from a mix of ww and range lead IIRC, and water dropped. I recovered them all from the paper, and was surprised at how much had broken or sheared off. The average remaining weight of the three was around 200+ gr. each. Think this was because they were water dropped and too hard, of fairly normal? Big bullets like this at this speed, I expected to find rather intact slugs.

I have actually been reading you all's "conversation" about hardness with interest. I had been starting to water drop everything; maybe not such a good idea.

[waksupi]

I guess this thread has drifted far enough from the original subject of .500 for bear, so I'll comment about water quenched bullets.

I had some .44 mag 310gr rounds loaded up, going about 1100fps+ in a 6" Smith, and just shot 3 rounds into a thick old catalog. These boolits were cast from a mix of ww and range lead IIRC, and water dropped. I recovered them all from the paper, and was surprised at how much had broken or sheared off. The average remaining weight of the three was around 200+ gr. each. Think this was because they were water dropped and too hard, of fairly normal? Big bullets like this at this speed, I expected to find rather intact slugs.

I have actually been reading you all's "conversation" about hardness with interest. I had been starting to water drop everything; maybe not such a good idea.

I will say yes, if you shoot softer boolits, you will retain more weight, as the softer alloy will not tend to shear or break as the harder projectiles will. Read my tag line, by a guy who shot a lot of big game. He wasn't talking about hard boolits.

[Bret4207]

Fatelk, I went through the rock hard stage. I found it's a waste of time for most handguns up into the 357/44mag pressure area. SOME guns need a tougher alloy to resist deformation/shearing on entering the rifling, but not all. Some guys are perfectly happy WQ or HT everything and that's fine. My issue comes from looking at an ambiguous advertising term as a fix to so many issues. HARDCAST won't fix a poor barrel, undersized boolits, over pressure load, under pressured load unbalanced load, misalignment in cylinders, leaded bore, constricted bore, uneven muzzle, over crimped or under crimped case, poor shot placement, poor boolit design, wrong pressure curve or any of a number of other malady's that plague cast shooters. HARDCAST may or may not give better penetration or killing power, there's so much else tot he issue that to rely on that one term is ludicrous. HARDCAST says nothing about the alloy or it's properties, other than it's apparently harder than something else, what exactly we aren't told. I'm fairly certain it's harder than cotton or marshmallows, but beyond that what does it tell us? Whats worse, due to the advertising of commercial cast outfits the term has come into common usage among people with little to no real knowledge or experience with cast. If they try a cast load and it leads or isn't accurate I can guarantee they will either A- state they need a HARDCAST or HARDER boolit or B- state cast is worthless junk and doesn't work at all. Using an ambiguous, improper term does the cast community a great disservice, simple as that.

[snowwolfe]

First, I would like to say I am an avid handgun hunter having shot moose and several species of deer with them. I also own a couple of S&W 500's (4 in and 6.5 in).
If you are in griz country a .500 is not what I would carry for protection. If you have to shoot a bear in DLP you want a rifle, and a heavy hitter at that. The speed of these animals is amazing and you will only have time for one shot, if you are lucky at that.
If you have to shoot in DLP it will be fast, barely enough time to get the rifle up and pointed, and most likely the bear will be within 10 yards of you when you finally fire. Further away than that and you may be in trouble with LEO for not being justified for the shooting.

Hunting is a different matter all together. Plenty of time to pick and choose your shots and be in a safe position where the bear cant see you.

[smoked turkey]

I almost hate to jump into this fray because I don't really have a "dog in this fight". But realizing that we are just exchanging information and its not really a fight. Just opinions. Many opinions here are based on experience which is the best teacher. Mine is not actual hunting experience with a handgun, but what I read a year or so back that I think is at the root of this discussion on hardcast bullets (the article I read didn't use the term boolits ). This particular article took a lever action 45-70 to Africa to hunt the really big bad critters. He used hardcast bullets to do so. I think the article spoke volumes to folks who really liked the lever action type of rifles and the 45-70. So the 45-70 is the answer to anything from rabbits to cape buffalo if you use hardcast bullets for the bad stuff. It has to be true because you can't read any African hunting story of the really dangerous game where the term 'solids' is not used. Ah Ha! We can equate solids to hardcast and it is a short hop to the conclusion that hardcast is the way to go if after dangerous game. Other wise why do they use solids in Africa. I think this is why the term hardcast has become so popular. I think a lot of it is nothing more than advertising hype to promote a product and a bullet.