Need for Solids?

[Philip Glass]

About two weeks ago I returned from South Africa and a management bull and cow buffalo hunt. I got both critters with no drama at about 40-50 yards using a 375 H&H and 300 grain Federal premium ammo in a rented rifle.
After my hunt I was talking guns and bullets with the retired PH who actually owned the land upon which I had been hunting.
His opinion was that since the advent of the really good controlled expansion, mono copper bullets like the Barnes brand that he felt there really was no longer any real need for solids in the 375 caliber rifles and on up.
What’s your opinion?

From my experiences I certainly agree with the retired PH you spoke with. There should be very little to discuss here. TSX simply works!

 

[Red Leg]

TSX or A-Frame, and I really don't care what a particular PH may suggest. I do bring along solids for my my .375 for any members of the tiny ten that I might encounter.

While I have not used the Northfork cup solid, I have used the Woodleigh Hydro a bit to include plains game and large black bear. The Hydro kills, just typically slower than the same shot with a quality SP. I did find them useful on a suni and red duiker, but concluded they were not what I wanted to use on a buffalo. Like any solid, it is not something to use around a herd.

I left a box and a half with a PH and he was very pleased with how they performed on elephant (yes, a PH with a .375) but he too employs an A Frames with buffalo.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

I use Swift A-frames almost exclusively in Africa. I won't use solids on Buffalo! The place for solids is
Elephants and tiny 10 and maybe Hippo.
Just about to try some North Fork in a couple doubles (SP & solids) for one other option.

As I have posted before I have utter distain for monoliths in general and especially Barnes. know there
are those who think they are the only bullet made, but I've never found accuracy to be consistent and
failures are too common from what I've personally observed. The thing I dislike most on monoliths is
the copper fouling esp with Barnes. And for those who are infatuated with Barnes you can post your opinion and hate mail, its why I love this forum!
Just remember the old saying "Opinions are like A--Holes we all have one and they all stink" Including mine.

Exactly what I found with Barnes. I haven't been motivated to try any other mono's. Too many quality bonded, lead core bullets being made now.

My PH likes North Fork for plains game but I've been using AccuBonds with great success for the last several years including my last safari. The bullets seem to upset quickly and leave a good exit. I haven't had to track anything that I've shot with them as things tend to stop happening pretty fast once an animal is hit.

 

[UpNorthMI]

No but so frustrated with Hornady I don't see a reason to even try it. So many more reliable products available.

I feel the newer Hornady DGX Bonded bullets are getting a bum rap, yes their old DGX bullets had some issues.

I've had great luck with the new Hornady DGX Bonded bullets, I just returned from a 32 Australian buffalo hunt where my son and I used 300 grain .375 Barnes TSX and 400 grain .416 Hornady DGX Bonded ammunition. I feel 32 animals gives us a reasonable sample to be able to comment.

The Hornady performed magnificently. Here are a couple of recovered rounds of TSX and Hornady DGX Bonded bullets that were found just under the skin on the other side of the animals:

As far as the need for solids go, I have not shot anything yet where I felt solids were needed, I do think I might shoot solids for Elephant and maybe Hippo.

Photo notes - Top of second photo is a Woodleigh .450 RNSP, wow what impact on a buffalo, it was the guides gun.
The smaller bullet is a .308 TSX 150 grain. The TSX are 300 gn .375. The Hornady DGX Bonded are 400 gn .416 fired from a 500/416 NE.

 

[IdahoMo]

Have you had any experience with the North Fork SS in 350 gr for the 375 H&H?

This may I had a buff hunt in the Zambezi Valley of Zimbabwe using the North Fork SS in 350 gr in my 375 H&H and the complementary 350gr CPS. They both performed fantastic. first shot quartering to at 40 yards broke front shoulder and ended in skin on opposite side going through both lungs. As it ran away it got a couple of CPS that went through the pelvis broadside. he went down quickly and that was that.

 

[Andrew62]

Any experience with the new CX line? GMX seemed to be brittle in other calibers

I watched a Youtube video last year of a lady who was using a .375H&H with the CX line of ammo, she hit a cape buffalo on the point of the shoulder, the bullet basically blew up and did not penetrate into the buffalo. I'll keep trying to find that video.

 

[ActionBob]

I feel the newer Hornady DGX Bonded bullets are getting a bum rap, yes their old DGX bullets had some issues.

I've had great luck with the new Hornady DGX Bonded bullets, I just returned from a 32 Australian buffalo hunt where my son and I used 300 grain .375 Barnes TSX and 400 grain .416 Hornady DGX Bonded ammunition. I feel 32 animals gives us a reasonable sample to be able to comment.

The Hornady performed magnificently. Here are a couple of recovered rounds of TSX and Hornady DGX Bonded bullets that were found just under the skin on the other side of the animals:

View attachment 703726

View attachment 703727

As far as the need for solids go, I have not shot anything yet where I felt solids were needed, I do think I might shoot solids for Elephant and maybe Hippo.

Photo notes - Top of second photo is a Woodleigh .450 RNSP, wow what impact on a buffalo, it was the guides gun.
The smaller bullet is a .308 TSX 150 grain. The TSX are 300 gn .375. The Hornady DGX Bonded are 400 gn .416 fired from a 500/416 NE.

I have no doubt you had good results. Heck I've seen lots of pictures of even blown up DGX bullets that the person was happy with because the animal they shot died.

Your pics look great!

My complaint is the picture I'm posting below. It was a hand loaded 480 grain Hornady DGX Bonded. Or was it? The only open box of 458 caliber expanding bullets I have is labeled as I just listed. I did load some DGS but if my pictured bullet is that (in case I got them mixed up) the results arexeven more concerning.

So is this a DGX Bonded that blew up? A DGS that blew up? Or a DGX that was put into a box at the factory that was labeled DGX Bonded? Either way it is a big problem!

I've seen a whiskey glass full of bullet fragments that came out of a lion that looked similar. Those were both DGX and DGS. @gizmo

I've shot lots of Hornady at targets where I'll get one or two real flyers. That doesn't happen with Federal or Barnes.

I just firmly believe Hornady has a real Quality Control issue.

 

[Andrew62]

I have no doubt you had good results. Heck I've seen lots of pictures of even blown up DGX bullets that the person was happy with because the animal they shot died.

Your pics look great!

My complaint is the picture I'm posting below. It was a hand loaded 480 grain Hornady DGX Bonded. Or was it? The only open box of 458 caliber expanding bullets I have is labeled as I just listed. I did load some DGS but if my pictured bullet is that (in case I got them mixed up) the results arexeven more concerning.

So is this a DGX Bonded that blew up? A DGS that blew up? Or a DGX that was put into a box at the factory that was labeled DGX Bonded? Either way it is a big problem!

I've seen a whiskey glass full of bullet fragments that came out of a lion that looked similar. Those were both DGX and DGS. @gizmo

I've shot lots of Hornady at targets where I'll get one or two real flyers. That doesn't happen with Federal or Barnes.

I just firmly believe Hornady has a real Quality Control issue.
View attachment 703736

That’s NOT GOOD!!

 

[ActionBob]

TSX or A-Frame, and I really don't care what a particular PH may suggest. I do bring along solids for my my .375 for any members of the tiny ten that I might encounter.

While I have not used the Northfork cup solid, I have used the Woodleigh Hydro a bit to include plains game and large black bear. The Hydro kills, just typically slower than the same shot with a quality SP. I did find them useful on a suni and red duiker, but concluded they were not what I wanted to use on a buffalo. Like any solid, it is not something to use around a herd.

I left a box and a half with a PH and he was very pleased with how they performed on elephant (yes, a PH with a .375) but he too employs an A Frames with buffalo.

The Woodleigh Hydro Solid is a great solid that feeds very well with it's nice round plastic tip. But it is a solid, nothing more. The theory that it is somehow different or better than a flat point monometal solid is bs. Other than the round plastic tip for cycling through the action of a bolt gun. I cannot find another advantage.

 

[mark-hunter]

What is the collective experience with Hornady DGS on elephant?

 

[Safari Dave]

Just go with your PH's recommendations and it can be as just as simple as that.



My PH wanted me to use a combination of expanding and solids for very specific reasons during my last buffalo hunt.

Expanding, when he didn't want the bullet to exit the animal.

Solid, when it exiting didn't matter or to help stop a charge.


I haven't taken monolithic copper bullets to Africa , yet.


If they have the potential to exit the target animal, then I'm sure he wouldn't want me to use them.

I was hunting in a large herd of buffalo.


He didn't want to risk a bullet exiting the bull and hitting a cow.



A combination of Hornady DGX and DGS worked out just fine with my .416.

 

[Brian]

Opinions Vary an solids.

There are new solids like CEB Safari Solids that are much different than traditional round nose solids which don't always penetrate straight or create a big wound channel.
The benefits of the CEB Safari Solid include deep and straight penetration with a wide permanent wound channel. Check the out. There are some other solids that do the same thing to varying degrees.

Meat tissue cavitates ( forms a bubble ) around the sides of these high-tech bullet minimizing the drag and deflection. This is proven countless times in controlled and field conditions.

Also, these solids with a wide flat meplat of about 70% of bullet diameter tend to keep going straight the bone .

Many DG hunters and PH's are not aware of this new technology. Michael458 has explained this several times here on AH. CEB should also be able to explain it.

North Fork Solids, big bores, perform similarly, I am told.

I have found that these new-tech solids are not at their best in the smaller calibers like .375. ( As far as I know, no solid is, in the smaller DG calibers.)

As I said, this is proven technology. Don't take my word for it, find out for yourselves.

 

[grand veneur]

I have no doubt you had good results. Heck I've seen lots of pictures of even blown up DGX bullets that the person was happy with because the animal they shot died.

Your pics look great!

My complaint is the picture I'm posting below. It was a hand loaded 480 grain Hornady DGX Bonded. Or was it? The only open box of 458 caliber expanding bullets I have is labeled as I just listed. I did load some DGS but if my pictured bullet is that (in case I got them mixed up) the results arexeven more concerning.

So is this a DGX Bonded that blew up? A DGS that blew up? Or a DGX that was put into a box at the factory that was labeled DGX Bonded? Either way it is a big problem!

I've seen a whiskey glass full of bullet fragments that came out of a lion that looked similar. Those were both DGX and DGS. @gizmo

I've shot lots of Hornady at targets where I'll get one or two real flyers. That doesn't happen with Federal or Barnes.

I just firmly believe Hornady has a real Quality Control issue.
View attachment 703736

I am not sure if the bullet pictured is a DGX from Hornady . It looks more like a classic older Hornady caliber 458 500gr SP bullet, like the ones pictured below, which I got out of several buffalo I shot with it. I don't use these bullets anymore.

 

[grand veneur]

In my opinion, some people sometimes confuse Hornady's newer DGX and DGS bullets with the older SP and FMJ bullets from this company. DGX bullets are significantly better designed than its predecessors. As for the DGS, other than having a flattened tip, it does not seem particularly different to me from its predecessor.

F.l.t.r., Hornady classic .458 500gr FMJ and 500gr SP Interbond

On the left side two classic .458 500gr FMJ bullets from Hornady recovered from Elephants.

 

[UpNorthMI]

I have no doubt you had good results. Heck I've seen lots of pictures of even blown up DGX bullets that the person was happy with because the animal they shot died.

Your pics look great!

My complaint is the picture I'm posting below. It was a hand loaded 480 grain Hornady DGX Bonded. Or was it? The only open box of 458 caliber expanding bullets I have is labeled as I just listed. I did load some DGS but if my pictured bullet is that (in case I got them mixed up) the results arexeven more concerning.

So is this a DGX Bonded that blew up? A DGS that blew up? Or a DGX that was put into a box at the factory that was labeled DGX Bonded? Either way it is a big problem!

I've seen a whiskey glass full of bullet fragments that came out of a lion that looked similar. Those were both DGX and DGS. @gizmo

I've shot lots of Hornady at targets where I'll get one or two real flyers. That doesn't happen with Federal or Barnes.

I just firmly believe Hornady has a real Quality Control issue.
View attachment 703736

Whatever that bullet was, your complaint is valid.

I've never been a fan or big user of Hornady bullets, however during covid times and supply problems there were few bullets on the shelves, the most common brand available in my area was Hornady bullets. I purchased many of their bullets in numerous calibers. I found that their bullets are good value and shot well in all calibers that I tried. I'm certainly not saying they are the best bullets as I typically would buy other brands.

Faced with trying to find bullets in .416 to use with my new to me double rifle on a large buffalo cull hunt, my first choice were Swift A frames but as so often happens there was no availability. I just purchased my first Swift A frames a couple of weeks ago after trying to get my hands on them for several years. My second choice was Barnes TSX only to find that my double rifle manufacturer apparently does not encourage the use of mono type bullets and there was very limited reliable load data available. I ended up selecting Hornady DGX Bonded as they were available and shot well in my practice sessions, load data was plentiful.

I have read all of the older negative reviews of the old Hornady bullets and they probably deserved all that was said about their poor performance. Hornady obviously listened to customer complaints and went away to solve issues and improve their product. These new bullets expand with petal like expansion, in the .416 these petals are very thick, I would guess about 1mm, the bullets expand well and hold together well, they are achieving good weight retention (typically 330 grains out of 400 grains). The bullets I recovered included shoulder shots, diagonal body shots and frontal body shots.

Bullet technology has improved significantly over the last few decades, we are lucky today with an excellent choice of products from many manufacturers. I don't think we can judge Hornady today based on their prior product failures, that is unfair. They have proven to be a company that has addressed their prior issues and have supported shooters with product availability.

I think real reviews of their current products are important as hunters are trying to make ammunition selection based on the challenges of availability, cost and anticipated product performance. I went on my last hunt with a little bullet anxiety based on taking Hornady DGX Bonded ammunition but quickly found that these bullets performed exceptionally well. My reason for making comments here is to hopefully help other hunters understand that the new Hornady bullets are not the same as the old products and that they should not be concerned to select this product.

Just for clarification I am in no way associated with Hornady and I shoot many brands of bullets. If I had old Hornady ammunition (pre bonded days), I would not hunt with it.

 

[Brian]

There have been a lot of advancement in the design and construction of dangerous game bullets regarding terminal performance in the last 20 years.

I am one of those guys who tends to stay current on some things and still get seriously outdated on firearms and bullets. ( I still use my old TC Encore for DG hunting. Yikes! )

Shooting and hunting is much about tradition, relating to the past, doing it the way the old guys taught us, and it doesn't lend itself to investigating new stuff. I find that most new hunting stuff is more about sales for the industry than the the needs of the hunter. I am just grumpy that way. For example I don't react well to most most hunting marketing. The Hornady adds come to mind.

Nearly a decade ago when I was starting to get real serious about hunting cape buffalo, Sam Rose of South Carolina sent me an email about .577 loads for the .577 NE. It included references to the Cutting Edge Bullets, both Raptor and #13 Solid.

The load data was very helpful but what really hit me was the fact that the leading edge of DG bullet technology had left me far behind.

That moment was big eye opener for me and it was long over due, I had just turned 71.
As Yogi Berra might have said, That moment was "80% Eurika and the other half panic." ( I am at my worst when I'm trying to be funny.)

So I set out to get myself up to speed searching for my Holy Grail of buffalo bullets. The hunting Gods were with me when I stumbled across the works and writing on Michael458 and his field testing described on B&M Rifles and Cartridges.

It wasn't long before nobody could talk to me anymore about bullets and terminal performance.
I became born again CEB Bullet man.

The information on all the new generation of hunting bullets is available out there but it is still somewhat esoteric. I believe that the few innovative bullet designers in this world, like Michael458, have provided us hunters much to be thankful for. We should receive it gracefully and go forth into the bush veld to hunt the awesome cape buffalo. Amen.

 

[ActionBob]

Whatever that bullet was, your complaint is valid.

I've never been a fan or big user of Hornady bullets, however during covid times and supply problems there were few bullets on the shelves, the most common brand available in my area was Hornady bullets. I purchased many of their bullets in numerous calibers. I found that their bullets are good value and shot well in all calibers that I tried. I'm certainly not saying they are the best bullets as I typically would buy other brands.

Faced with trying to find bullets in .416 to use with my new to me double rifle on a large buffalo cull hunt, my first choice were Swift A frames but as so often happens there was no availability. I just purchased my first Swift A frames a couple of weeks ago after trying to get my hands on them for several years. My second choice was Barnes TSX only to find that my double rifle manufacturer apparently does not encourage the use of mono type bullets and there was very limited reliable load data available. I ended up selecting Hornady DGX Bonded as they were available and shot well in my practice sessions, load data was plentiful.

I have read all of the older negative reviews of the old Hornady bullets and they probably deserved all that was said about their poor performance. Hornady obviously listened to customer complaints and went away to solve issues and improve their product. These new bullets expand with petal like expansion, in the .416 these petals are very thick, I would guess about 1mm, the bullets expand well and hold together well, they are achieving good weight retention (typically 330 grains out of 400 grains). The bullets I recovered included shoulder shots, diagonal body shots and frontal body shots.

Bullet technology has improved significantly over the last few decades, we are lucky today with an excellent choice of products from many manufacturers. I don't think we can judge Hornady today based on their prior product failures, that is unfair. They have proven to be a company that has addressed their prior issues and have supported shooters with product availability.

I think real reviews of their current products are important as hunters are trying to make ammunition selection based on the challenges of availability, cost and anticipated product performance. I went on my last hunt with a little bullet anxiety based on taking Hornady DGX Bonded ammunition but quickly found that these bullets performed exceptionally well. My reason for making comments here is to hopefully help other hunters understand that the new Hornady bullets are not the same as the old products and that they should not be concerned to select this product.

Just for clarification I am in no way associated with Hornady and I shoot many brands of bullets. If I had old Hornady ammunition (pre bonded days), I would not hunt with it.

1. I'm not saying their bullets shoot poorly, but my experience with their factory loaded ammo has been that most shoots really well however every now and then there will a real flyer. Leads me to believe it is a quality control issue.

2. Exactly my experience with my 111 year old Nitro Express hammer double. I would have preferred almost anything else such as a Woodleigh Protected Point. I had Swift A Frames in 500 grain but the rifle is regulated for 480 grains and the load data i have is for 480 grain bullets. So I used the Hornady DGX Bonded... Or at least the bullets that came out of the box labeled so.

As for the rest of your comments;
I honestly disagree with your positive opinion of Hornady. Certainly there has to be good people there and Steve Hornady is probably a great guy. I'm sure we'd get along in a hunting camp... As long as we avoided any discussion of bullets

There is a very mainstream hunting video where Steve Hornady is testing his new DGX Bonded bullets. He openly declares there was no need for it saying there is nothing wrong with the old standard DGX. He goes on to say they developed it because some customers were asking for it. He has obviously not bought in on this and comes across as being somewhat irritated about having to bother with the Bonded bullet. I just don't believe the top man believes in their value and from my experience the attitude of the top management is reflected in the culture of the company.

So I just cannot share any enthusiasm that Hornady has somehow had their customers best interest in mind. I suspect it was more a case of being dragged by their heels through customers push back on the old DGX.

That buffalo i shot with this .458 480 grain DGX Bonded bullet ran for 8 days and scared the hell out of some PG hunters it charged. The PH had to finally get a helicopter to go after it. All because my Hornady supposedly Bonded Bullet exploded on impact and failed to penetrate. The reason I'm telling this story is to let others know that to Trust a Hornady bullet, even the new Bonded ones, can be a crap shoot. You may get lucky or you may not.

 

[grand veneur]

The design of the DGX bullets from Hornady reminds me somewhat of the A-Square Dead Tough bullets. They did not have a bad reputation back then. If we question the effectiveness of the DGX bullets from Hornady, we have to question the effectiveness of all similar bullets on the market, including those from Woodleigh for example. Once again, we are not talking about the old SP bullets that filled our big bore cartridges more than 60 years ago and are partly responsible for the bad reputation of cartridges like the 460 Weatherby Magnum for example. We talk about current concepts that, like other bullets, were developed after studies. I fear that there is a lot of advertising behind a lot of things and that some counter-propaganda is promoted and supported indirectly against some bullets designs.

 

[Fordy]

Gday grand veneur sorry for delay had a lot on with work & no excuse but it’s hard with what I’m doing @ that moment to get enough hours in the day to do what I’d love to do so please bare with me as 16 to 20 hours a day is the norm work schedule for me @ present 7days a week & had a couple hours up my sleeve this morning before I head out again

Anyway moving on to your reply to me

I don't know what there is left to discuss.

Depends if one is fixated with the conventional old thoughts or are willing to clear their heads & look @ factuals in critters
Yes it takes time to understand , just think how long it took Fn to gain credibility over the RN & yet some still say it’s never happened to me so all good on a RN well get in line & take one’s number in the bingo raffle as the number will eventually come up well to someone it will

The current trend in buffalo hunting is the use of premium SP bullets that have proven effective due to their controlled expansion and low weight loss.

Does this make it the best to cover all bases ???
That takes one to look @ the whole picture first off & not put a blanket over everything as this below of

The only reason i think solids would come in handy is follow up shots in heavy cover. The deflection difference when engaging with targets in heavy brush can tip the scales towards solids always having a place. I know you can keyhole any type bullet but i think solids have a "solid" advantage when having to shoot thru brush.

Shows exactly that although I see some different thoughts from @BeeMaa & I’ll come to that as we go but a separate post I’ll make as not to clutter this up to much

We also know that some solids can, due to their design, also be very effective, but their use in buffalo hunting has not yet prevailed. Rethinking when a concept is stuck can take decades, but it may also never happen.

Or is it they haven’t seen it yet ?? A old saying of when the majority work out what the minority is on about the minority have already moved on is one that can be traced a longways back & sometimes yes it does take decades

The topic is Need for Solids? The answer is no!

So back to the start & until one delves deeper the answer of not is flawed

No offence intended on my response as the discussion is a great one to start & thankyou for taking the time to open the discussion up & next part I’d like to add is the deflection off horns , teeth or certain bones or deformation of the pill of impacting it as that also goes with the brush examples & that also is another one of those bases to consider/cover if one wants to cover as many bases as possible on a hunt yet it may NEVER happen to you or your mate but it’s one that will occur to someone & yes does occur on a limited basis & understanding in those cases you’ll wish you had a true solid of good design

Cheers

 

[Doug Hamilton]

Gday grand veneur sorry for delay had a lot on with work & no excuse but it’s hard with what I’m doing @ that moment to get enough hours in the day to do what I’d love to do so please bare with me as 16 to 20 hours a day is the norm work schedule for me @ present 7days a week & had a couple hours up my sleeve this morning before I head out again

Anyway moving on to your reply to me

Depends if one is fixated with the conventional old thoughts or are willing to clear their heads & look @ factuals in critters
Yes it takes time to understand , just think how long it took Fn to gain credibility over the RN & yet some still say it’s never happened to me so all good on a RN well get in line & take one’s number in the bingo raffle as the number will eventually come up well to someone it will

Does this make it the best to cover all bases ???
That takes one to look @ the whole picture first off & not put a blanket over everything as this below of

Shows exactly that although I see some different thoughts from @BeeMaa & I’ll come to that as we go but a separate post I’ll make as not to clutter this up to much

Or is it they haven’t seen it yet ?? A old saying of when the majority work out what the minority is on about the minority have already moved on is one that can be traced a longways back & sometimes yes it does take decades

So back to the start & until one delves deeper the answer of not is flawed

No offence intended on my response as the discussion is a great one to start & thankyou for taking the time to open the discussion up & next part I’d like to add is the deflection off horns , teeth or certain bones or deformation of the pill of impacting it as that also goes with the brush examples & that also is another one of those bases to consider/cover if one wants to cover as many bases as possible on a hunt yet it may NEVER happen to you or your mate but it’s one that will occur to someone & yes does occur on a limited basis & understanding in those cases you’ll wish you had a true solid of good design

Cheers

Well said.