Hornady just announced bonded DGX

That's likely very true...round count would never be that high and the overall % of the bullet that is steel is small. I'm sure there is some resource as so many bullets nowdays are monolithic and whatnot. I doubt it would matter overall. I've burned thousands of rounds of wolf and similar through ARs and I would say that there is absolutely more throat erosion...but it's still thousands of rounds. The 500 rounds someone may put through a big bore likely won't matter.

lockingblock said:

That's likely very true...round count would never be that high and the overall % of the bullet that is steel is small. I'm sure there is some resource as so many bullets nowdays are monolithic and whatnot. I doubt it would matter overall. I've burned thousands of rounds of wolf and similar through ARs and I would say that there is absolutely more throat erosion...but it's still thousands of rounds. The 500 rounds someone may put through a big bore likely won't matter.

Click to expand...

lockingblock said:

Right...but it is not as compressible and, at least in smaller calibers, causes more wear to the throat.

DOD saw this with M855A1 when they rolled it out and it destroyed M-4 barrels inside 5K rounds...but there were some other issues there as well.

I'm not saying it's bad...just curious as to any data on steel jackets and barrel wear.

Click to expand...

All of Rigbys (and kynochs) original solids from their .350 on up were steel jacketed and not coated to protect the bore. PHs and Game Department officials fired many thousands of those Rigby solids without any undo wear. At least not any that they mentioned. Harry Selby shot out his .416 barrel, but he had put thousands of rounds through it.

In the end, degraded accuracy from what some would consider a shot out precision rifle barrel would go completely unnoticed from a medium (.33-.375) to large bore (.40+) dangerous game rifle. If the rifle still prints a 1-2 inch group at 100 yards, it's more than accurate enough for all of the dangerous game in Africa, with the exception of maybe croc.

Velo Dog said:

Hallo IvW,

Your posts often make more "basic horse sense" to me than some other's do (admittedly to include some of my own blathering as well).
Be that as it may, and just to be a smartass here, if Rhino or Swift (or name your premium bullet) made their excellent bonded core softs in .509" - .510" caliber, at 570 grains of both spitzer and round nose shapes, would you prefer one over the other in your .500 Jeffery and why ?
Actually my question is only partly flippant in content, because I too own a .500 Jeffery and am honestly curious what someone who has shot a good number of animals with this caliber would prefer, round nose or spitzer (or, semi-spitzer while we're at it).
I've not shot very many live animals with any caliber above .375 except one buffalo (.450 No2 NE) and Sitka blacktail deer (.45-70).
But I have indeed shot perhaps 40 hooved, non-dangerous animals with the .375 H&H, using both pointed and blunt shaped softs alike on these.
It's admittedly not very many critters, in the big picture of things but even so, I have noticed that heart / lung shot animals apparently succumb faster, from blunt shaped .37 caliber projectile hits than their similar sized brethren do from pointy shaped .37 caliber heart / lung hits.

Respectfully,
Velo Dog.

Click to expand...

Hi Velo Dog

Let me stick with the Rhino bullets as this is what I use exclusively for DG and short range(up to 220 yards) PG hunting.

You are most certainly correct in your assumption that heart/lung shot animals succumb faster when shot with blunter projectiles than with more spitzer shaped ones. The main reason for this is that this shape and design ensures proper set-up or mushrooming of the bullet upon impact with whatever it is you are shooting.

Now if you are using a round nose shaped bullet, with a decent portion of lead exposed at the nose, the lead is bonded to the copper jacket, the bullet has a solid rear shank to control expansion and it is designed to open up with four petals that typically expand to 2.5 x the caliber, then you have one of the best bullets available for DG.

Best of all it is of forward weight design and remains as such even after full expansion.

This design maximizes killing efficiency due to its excellent straight line penetration and devastating wound channel.

Barnes bullets, although excellent bullets for PG fall short for DG. This is due to the spitzer design and in order for the bullet to expand, it is designed with a small hole in front. This design makes use of hydraulic action to expand(soft tissue entering the small hole hydraulically forces the bullet to start set-up. Unfortunately, especially when initially hitting hard bone etc. they do not always reliably expand. Therefore I do not use them on DG. This may also occur with the bullets in the magazine of heavier recoiling rifles. The delicate front part of the spitzer shaped bullet impacts heavily with the front part of the magazine which may cause enough damage to the tip to hamper expansion. I have seen too many bullets of this design not expand.

Back to the Rhino bullets.

The heavy for caliber, larger bore(375 and up) Rhino controlled expansion bullets are most definitely not what you could call a spitzer or even semi-spitzer, they are much more round nose shaped. The smaller calibers are more spitzer shaped.


Third from the right is where 375 H&H starts, nothing spitzer about them.


380 gr 375 bullet, more round nosed than spitzer.

They are moly coated to reduce bore fouling from the copper.


More 380 gr 375 bullets.


3 shot group at 100 meter 9,3×62 300 gr.RHINO


3 shot group at 100 meter 9,3×62 300 gr.RHINO


Problem Zebra stallion(killing all new foals in herd), I shot this zebra with my 7x57mm using a 170 gr Rhino. He was running right to left behind the herd at 70 meters. One shot and he piled up 50 meters later.


Eland bull shot for meat. I again used my 7x57mm loaded with the same 170gr Rhino bullet. Broadside on the shoulder shot, bullet smashed through shoulder top of heart and lungs, other shoulder and lodged under the skin on the opposite side. The bull was oblivious to my presence when I shot him and he managed only 15 meters before piling up.

From Kobus at Rhino bullets website;"Whether you are after a trophy Blue Duiker or Cape Buffalo you have a bullet that has done the job before and will do the job again and again. Rhino Bullets have been designed and constructed to stand up to anything you throw at them."

I can wholeheartedly attest to this fact.

So to answer your question in short-

at 570 grains of both spitzer and round nose shapes, would you prefer one over the other in your .500 Jeffery and why ?

Round nosed. Having said that other bullets with a more spitzer shape bullet(swift A-frame etc.) also work very well and this I attribute to the fact they they are weight forward designs and have enough lead exposed in front to ensure reliable expansion. A-frame, Trophy bonded bear claw, North Fork are excellent bullets.

For me the, Rhino in 570 grain controlled expansion or the Rhino meplat solid(for ele, rhino and hippo on land) in the 500 Jeff all the way. Just be well aware of the fact that the solid 570 gr Rhino will shoot through just about everything at the velocities I load them. Elephant, buffalo etc. I shot a White Rhino bull with a quartering frontal shot-bullet entered in front of the rhinos right shoulder and excited on the left rear leg!

Why? Because they work and are the most devastatingly effective bullet I have ever used, especially on DG, I have never had any issues or failures with them. It is a bullet I can use with the utmost confidence in any situation on any DG and know that it will do what it was designed to do. Kill with the most efficiency of any bullet I have ever used.

Good hunting to you, Sir.
Best regards.
IvW

IvW,

That's just bully !
Thank you for the fast response and articulate explanation (no surprise there).
You have the gift of gab, as do I.
However I freely admit that, you have the equivalent of several more lifetimes in hunting experience to your credit than I do plus, you are well better organized in putting your thoughts into chronological order than I.

Man, from the tiny bit on Rhino bullets I have heard, (rifle talk, around an evening fire in South Africa) nothing but perfect reports have reached my ears.
Sadly though, Rhino bullets are not often seen where I live.
However, I did bag one box of Rhino softs here, in 8 mm (.323 / "S bore") for a fraction of what they should have been selling for (private seller at a gun show).
At the moment, I'm too lazy to dig them out of my projectile stash but, I recall that they are either 200 grain or possibly 196 grain.
Until further notice, I do not have a rifle to fit them (sold my 8x57S several years ago, to help pay for a safari - lol).
But all is not lost, as I always keep one eye open for just the right deal on another one ..... I will find it, one of these days.

At any rate, a very commonly available premium / bonded core bullet here is, the Swift A-Frame.
And I totally agree with you that, it too is one of the very best.
In my limited hunting experiences, the A-Frame is my #1 choice in extra-tough sot nose bullets.
As I had mentioned previously, I'd like to see it available in heavy for caliber, round nose profile, for all common hunting calibers, down to and including 6.5 mm.
But, since A-Frames are such excellent performers in Semi-Spitzer shape just as they are, that very small wish is definitely not a deal breaker for me, whatsoever.
At least they're not full-on spitzer shape with tiny hollow point (that would be a deal breaker).
As others have already said, in more than one or two AH threads: "We are fortunate to have the variety of premium bullets that are available to us these days" (or, words to that affect).

Well any way, I really appreciate your posts, always informative, always entertaining.
If you ever make it up to Alaska some day, I'd be happy to buy you a cold one.

Totsiens,
Paul Ard.
Anchorage.

make that 2 cold ones!

There is an interesting video on the Hornady website at https://www.hornady.com/bullets/dgx-bonded#!/ The video is titled DGX Bonded Cape Buffalo Field Test. A Dr Kevin 'Doctari' Robertson, described as PH, author and African big game expert (unknown to me, but maybe known to a number of you?), recovers from a buf, and measures, DGX B bullets shot a "30 paces" in a semi controlled field environment.
The video does not specify it clearly but going by the recovered bullet weight and % of weight retention, these are 400 gr bullets, likely fired from a .416 Rigby based on a quick glance at the cartridges being loaded in the rifle for the test.
I will not dare enter the debate about how much "best" is "better" than "good," let enough "good enough," and God forbids! "perfect" or "ideal" ;-) but the video starts providing some data for those interested in a fact-based answer to the question: what is the difference between DGX and DGX B.
Of course the statistical sample is very small (one buf and a few bullets), but this beats pure unadulterated wild speculation ;-)
Yes, I will hasten to say in order to preempt vigorously worded answers, the DGX B undoubtedly fail the weight retention test - for those who expect 95% retention, as will bullets of any make and any type occasional fail (TSX behaving like solids, A Frames or Partitions loosing the front core, etc.), and no doubt this video will be irrelevant to those who have definitive opinions based on life-long experience, but it may prove interesting to those who, like me, have not shot scores of buf and such, and are genuinely trying to form an opinion on affordable ammo.
Enjoy...

One Day... said:

There is an interesting video on the Hornady website at https://www.hornady.com/bullets/dgx-bonded#!/ The video is titled DGX Bonded Cape Buffalo Field Test. A Dr Kevin 'Doctari' Robertson, described as PH, author and African big game expert (unknown to me, but maybe known to a number of you?), recovers from a buf, and measures, DGX B bullets shot a "30 paces" in a semi controlled field environment.
The video does not specify it clearly but going by the recovered bullet weight and % of weight retention, these are 400 gr bullets, likely fired from a .416 Rigby based on a quick glance at the cartridges being loaded in the rifle for the test.
I will not dare enter the debate about how much "best" is "better" than "good," let enough "good enough," and God forbids! "perfect" or "ideal" ;-) but the video starts providing some data for those interested in a fact-based answer to the question: what is the difference between DGX and DGX B.
Of course the statistical sample is very small (one buf and a few bullets), but this beats pure unadulterated wild speculation ;-)
Yes, I will hasten to say in order to preempt vigorously worded answers, the DGX B undoubtedly fail the weight retention test - for those who expect 95% retention, as will bullets of any make and any type occasional fail (TSX behaving like solids, A Frames or Partitions loosing the front core, etc.), and no doubt this video will be irrelevant to those who have definitive opinions based on life-long experience, but it may prove interesting to those who, like me, have not shot scores of buf and such, and are genuinely trying to form an opinion on affordable ammo.
Enjoy...

Click to expand...

Dr. Robertson is a veterinarian from Zimbabwe originally if I remember correctly. He has probably shot more buffalo than most people on this forum combined. His opinion on such things is highly regarded. He also occasionally posts here on AH.

As far as the video goes, it would appear that Hornady has got it pretty right in regards to bonding the lead to the copper. One bullet weighed in only about 55% of original weight, but the others were in the 80% or higher. I would have liked to have seen exactly where the bullets were recovered, but it was implied when measuring the holes in the offside ribs.

Initial impression for me is that the DGX-B is a significant improvement to the DGX. I'd like to see a few more field reports however.

One Day... said:

and are genuinely trying to form an opinion on affordable ammo.
Enjoy...

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how well "affordable ammo" and cape buffalo hunting go together, or should go together.

But my solution has been many boxes of low priced ammo for practice, and then a few boxes of premium stuff loaded with A Frames, Trophy Bonded, Barnes, and a good solid such as Hydro's for final sight in and to hunt with.

One Day... said:

There is an interesting video on the Hornady website at https://www.hornady.com/bullets/dgx-bonded#!/ The video is titled DGX Bonded Cape Buffalo Field Test. A Dr Kevin 'Doctari' Robertson, described as PH, author and African big game expert (unknown to me, but maybe known to a number of you?), recovers from a buf, and measures, DGX B bullets shot a "30 paces" in a semi controlled field environment.
The video does not specify it clearly but going by the recovered bullet weight and % of weight retention, these are 400 gr bullets, likely fired from a .416 Rigby based on a quick glance at the cartridges being loaded in the rifle for the test.
I will not dare enter the debate about how much "best" is "better" than "good," let enough "good enough," and God forbids! "perfect" or "ideal" ;-) but the video starts providing some data for those interested in a fact-based answer to the question: what is the difference between DGX and DGX B.
Of course the statistical sample is very small (one buf and a few bullets), but this beats pure unadulterated wild speculation ;-)
Yes, I will hasten to say in order to preempt vigorously worded answers, the DGX B undoubtedly fail the weight retention test - for those who expect 95% retention, as will bullets of any make and any type occasional fail (TSX behaving like solids, A Frames or Partitions loosing the front core, etc.), and no doubt this video will be irrelevant to those who have definitive opinions based on life-long experience, but it may prove interesting to those who, like me, have not shot scores of buf and such, and are genuinely trying to form an opinion on affordable ammo.
Enjoy...

Click to expand...

There are much better proven bullets available.

One Day... said:

There is an interesting video on the Hornady website at https://www.hornady.com/bullets/dgx-bonded#!/ The video is titled DGX Bonded Cape Buffalo Field Test. A Dr Kevin 'Doctari' Robertson, described as PH, author and African big game expert (unknown to me, but maybe known to a number of you?), recovers from a buf, and measures, DGX B bullets shot a "30 paces" in a semi controlled field environment.
The video does not specify it clearly but going by the recovered bullet weight and % of weight retention, these are 400 gr bullets, likely fired from a .416 Rigby based on a quick glance at the cartridges being loaded in the rifle for the test.
I will not dare enter the debate about how much "best" is "better" than "good," let enough "good enough," and God forbids! "perfect" or "ideal" ;-) but the video starts providing some data for those interested in a fact-based answer to the question: what is the difference between DGX and DGX B.
Of course the statistical sample is very small (one buf and a few bullets), but this beats pure unadulterated wild speculation ;-)
Yes, I will hasten to say in order to preempt vigorously worded answers, the DGX B undoubtedly fail the weight retention test - for those who expect 95% retention, as will bullets of any make and any type occasional fail (TSX behaving like solids, A Frames or Partitions loosing the front core, etc.), and no doubt this video will be irrelevant to those who have definitive opinions based on life-long experience, but it may prove interesting to those who, like me, have not shot scores of buf and such, and are genuinely trying to form an opinion on affordable ammo.
Enjoy...

Click to expand...

I would put Dr. Robertson up near the very top of experienced professional hunters. He also is tremendously knowledgable about ballistics and how to best drop an animal. Before anyone goes to Africa, I would recommend reading his "The Perfect Shot." I believe @Gert Odendaal took a course with him in South Africa and he commented on it here on the forum. The link is evading me right now though. his opnion holds sway in this community for sure!

IvW said:

There are much better proven bullets available.

Click to expand...

Agreed! I just wish Rhino bullets were available in the U.S.

One Day... said:

...and are genuinely trying to form an opinion on affordable ammo.
Enjoy...

Click to expand...

I am grateful to Hornady for many of their products.

My first handloads 44 years ago were with their bullets!

I currently have something like 1,000 of their .410 and .458 bullets on my bench. They are great for many uses.

When it comes to DG hunting (which I will do for the first time in August 2019) the last thing I am concerned about is the cost of the ammo I will use while hunting.

Practice ammo cost is a consideration. Hundreds of rounds where bullet failure has no consequence.

Total cost for A-Frame/North Fork for the actual test/hunt ammo vs Hornady may be an incremental $100 max.

That is 0.003% of my hunt cost, and less than I will tip any member of the Safari team.

I will watch to see how they work for others, and I wish Hornady nothing but success.

Tim

PHOENIX PHIL said:

Dr. Robertson is a veterinarian from Zimbabwe originally if I remember correctly. He has probably shot more buffalo than most people on this forum combined. His opinion on such things is highly regarded. He also occasionally posts here on AH.

As far as the video goes, it would appear that Hornady has got it pretty right in regards to bonding the lead to the copper. One bullet weighed in only about 55% of original weight, but the others were in the 80% or higher. I would have liked to have seen exactly where the bullets were recovered, but it was implied when measuring the holes in the offside ribs.

Initial impression for me is that the DGX-B is a significant improvement to the DGX. I'd like to see a few more field reports however.

Click to expand...

Phil you have that all correct.

Additionally Dr. Robertson also conceived, researched, and authored "The Perfect Shot" books. At least the original Africa versions. Being a well practiced veterinarian he actually investigated the internal effects of many shots on many animals. And did so with a full understanding of all the internal layouts and workings of the vitals of many species.

tarbe said:

I am grateful to Hornady for many of their products.

My first handloads 44 years ago were with their bullets!

I currently have something like 1,000 of their .410 and .458 bullets on my bench. They are great for many uses.

When it comes to DG hunting (which I will do for the first time in August 2019) the last thing I am concerned about is the cost of the ammo I will use while hunting.

Practice ammo cost is a consideration. Hundreds of rounds where bullet failure has no consequence.

Total cost for A-Frame/North Fork for the actual test/hunt ammo vs Hornady may be an incremental $100 max.

That is 0.003% of my hunt cost, and less than I will tip any member of the Safari team.

I will watch to see how they work for others, and I wish Hornady nothing but success.

Tim

Click to expand...

Agreed.

For now they are good for practice and PG. Until such time as they are extensively proven on DG, you have made an excellent choice and decision.

One Day... said:

There is an interesting video on the Hornady website at https://www.hornady.com/bullets/dgx-bonded#!/ The video is titled DGX Bonded Cape Buffalo Field Test. A Dr Kevin 'Doctari' Robertson, described as PH, author and African big game expert (unknown to me, but maybe known to a number of you?), recovers from a buf, and measures, DGX B bullets shot a "30 paces" in a semi controlled field environment.
The video does not specify it clearly but going by the recovered bullet weight and % of weight retention, these are 400 gr bullets, likely fired from a .416 Rigby based on a quick glance at the cartridges being loaded in the rifle for the test.
I will not dare enter the debate about how much "best" is "better" than "good," let enough "good enough," and God forbids! "perfect" or "ideal" ;-) but the video starts providing some data for those interested in a fact-based answer to the question: what is the difference between DGX and DGX B.
Of course the statistical sample is very small (one buf and a few bullets), but this beats pure unadulterated wild speculation ;-)
Yes, I will hasten to say in order to preempt vigorously worded answers, the DGX B undoubtedly fail the weight retention test - for those who expect 95% retention, as will bullets of any make and any type occasional fail (TSX behaving like solids, A Frames or Partitions loosing the front core, etc.), and no doubt this video will be irrelevant to those who have definitive opinions based on life-long experience, but it may prove interesting to those who, like me, have not shot scores of buf and such, and are genuinely trying to form an opinion on affordable ammo.
Enjoy...

Click to expand...

I cannot seem to find the video referenced above but, as others have stated, Dr. Robertson is well qualified to speak on the matter.

I do commend Hornady for trying to improve their DGX product line however, seeing that their business model is high volume at a reasonable cost, in this way they will continue to have some serious competition (in other words, they cannot really hope to make something as good as a Swift (as an example) and do so at the same cost...and yes, when it comes to a dangerous game hunt please do not choose a certain load due to cost but take the best you can get...why chance a five-figure hunt (much less the safety of the pro staff) on a $100 difference in ammunition...it just does not make any sense, none whatsoever).

Is it just me, or does it look like a significant amount of lead has been shed in the following example from Hornady's marketing material. To me it seems that at least 100+ grains is missing. It looks like the bullet expanded to the interior shoulder of the cup. (as it is supposed to) Then the lead that is bonded to the cup has done its job of staying attached. The rest of the lead core, above the shoulder, that is not bonded looks to be missing.

I would like to hear the thoughts of some of you experts on the subject.

Yeah, no doubt some is missing. From the video I saw:

CTDolan said:

Yeah, no doubt some is missing. From the video I saw:

View attachment 217460

Click to expand...

This is what woodleighs look like too though... the interior lead is soft and once the jacket strips away, nothing is there to support it. The core lead is exposed mashes and smears away. The bullets appear to be bonded all the way to the nose as evidenced by the lead that is still bonded to the jacket sections that have expanded. If it wasn't, these would be copper petals not covered in a tinned layer of lead.

Wheels said:

Is it just me, or does it look like a significant amount of lead has been shed in the following example from Hornady's marketing material. To me it seems that at least 100+ grains is missing. It looks like the bullet expanded to the interior shoulder of the cup. (as it is supposed to) Then the lead that is bonded to the cup has done its job of staying attached. The rest of the lead core, above the shoulder, that is not bonded looks to be missing.

I would like to hear the thoughts of some of you experts on the subject.

Click to expand...

Hi Wheels,

Good question, thanks for posting it.

I am certainly no expert at anything, including ballistics.
However, in my limited experiences of shooting things and enthusiastically examining every projectile I can find, the following is my best guess:
1.
Yes, indeed the recovered bullet (or 2 very similar recovered bullets?) in the photo here looks as if it shed much of the front approximately 1/3.
2.
That said, the remaining portion shows the desirable flat shape, combined with sharp and jagged petals or "saw teeth" around the perimeter.
3.
IMO, this is near perfect for cutting its path or "drilling" its way through a live target, as opposed to a more rounded tip "mushroom shaped" bullet, as the more rounded shape tends to push its way through live tissue.
4.
This can and often does IMO result in the flat nosed / saw toothed one not only penetrating further but, also severing nerves, tendons and blood vessels that the smoother "mushroom" shaped one might only push aside, as it travels past same.
5.
I'm +1 with others in noting that Hornady has evidently listened to the complaints about their original DGX product.
Bonding the core to the jacket is wise and I am happy to see this.
Furthermore, just like others here, I've used Hornady bullets since before the wheel was invented and have been very unwaveringly happy with same.
That being said, I had used the original DGX in an antique British double (Army & Navy .450 No2 NE) to shoot one buffalo and some dreaded "plains game".
At the sedate muzzle velocity of 2050 fps, there were no bullet failures.
6.
I'm definitely not claiming one heavy animal and less than half a dozen - not so heavy animals, is any sort of acid test.
Certainly it is nothing of the sort.
But combined with using various dreaded "cup and core" bullet brands, including Hornady and others ... as usual it does suggest that, old time design lead core bullets tend to be more reliable at old time velocities (duh).

Parting Shot as it were:
At the end of the day, I feel that the Swift A-Frame is a best choice for other than creaky old antique doubles, which might suffer damage from this heavily reinforced bullet (it is rumored in some circles that antique doubles MIGHT separate at the muzzles, due to solder breaking loose).
Even though the A-Frame tends to "mushroom" in live tissue and not end up with so much of a flat profile (due to the front core being stoutly bonded to the copper jacket), it retains most of its original weight, somewhat making up for the lack of flat tipped profile.
It really does not need improvement, again IMO.
I have however pondered why Swift bothers to make their truly large bore A-Frames in semi-spitzer, instead of flat nose or round nose.
They do make their 500 gr one, for the .470 NE in that wonderful profile.

Stay on that front sight,
Velo Dog.

PS:
I'm +1 with ChrisG on the Rhino bullet sadly not being widely available here in the USA.

Over the weekend CAustin, Shootist43 and I attended the SCI Hunters Expo in Kansas City and attended an informal talk by Craig Boddington. I asked him if he had the chance to use the DGX Bonded bullet, he laughed out loud and said yes, intentionally and unintentionally. He went on to explain that per his conversation with Steve Hornady all the DGX bullets made in the last two years have been bonded. Craig freely admitted that the A-Frame is the better bullet and the Gold Standard in expanding bullets, in some cases it's to good to use. In his opinion the A-Frame and the Barnes TSX are excellent bullets for hunting lone Dagga boys but because of their ability to exit Cape Buffalo they should not be used when hunting bulls in a herd, for hunting bulls in a herd he preferred the DGX.