Discussion in 'Firearms & Ammunition' started by Paul Edwards, Jun 21, 2017.
I agree with you IvW.
@IvW everyone whom has read this thread knows how you feel about Hornady. That's 100% your own opinion to make. Some agree with you and some disagree, I'm neither here nor there on that issue.
My point is with Wit that a rifle will not always shoot every load well, that is not opinion but rather fact and I'm sure you can agree. Whether the finest components or the worst, some will shoot and group well or horrendous despite being either the finest rifles or the worst.
They can group as well as they want I will not use them, pointless having a great group and a crap bullet makes no sense, for hunting anyway...
Let’s be open—if we can—Hornady has not always been straight about some issues, but then federal fell down on the consistency of Bearclaws and Sledgehammers after buying out j. Carter. I have heard that Sledgehammers are still fracturing.[old production?] Woodleighs had to wake up to more modern powders ie increased fpm issues. Nosler, I hear did some product changes in their big bore bullets.
Back in the 80s Nosler was touted as one of the best. I used a 458 Lott 30 + years ago with the new Aframes and found a few Sledgehammers but had to resort to Hornady solids to fill my trip needs. Found 4 Hornady fired solids but recovered no Sledgehammers [pass thru]. The Hornadys all are in reusable condition. If one has the first edition of “THE PERFECT sHOT” you will note Doctari photos of Hornady solids and has nothing bad to say about same.
Yes, I know you may be talking about expanding bullets but it is coming thru as all Hornady DG bullets.
I returned to amunnition from Norma with bullet ORYX and with RWS with bullet TM.
I will never buy ammunition from Hornady.
Another victim of the liberal history revisioners. such the pity.
Big fan of the Norma Oryx.
Shoots to same point of impact as Swift A-Frames in my 375 and my wife's 270.
Appears to me that the discussion of Hornady products needs to include the element of opportunity. For the last several decades the opportunity to hunt and shoot game is limited, particularly with the DG class. anyone that shoots over a dozen DG in in a very small group. So it would benefit someone going on a DG hunt to consider the expense and opportunity elements. Being pennywise and pound foolish would apply to someone looking to save a few dollars on ammunition while spending thousands of dollars on the hunt, when the potential failure of the ammunition could determine the outcome of the hunt. the other aspect is rifle familiarity. A person needs to have fired and handled the firearm sufficient to be well beyond the introductory stage of the relationship. This calls for practice on the firingline. the real advantage I see to bullets of questionable terminal performance but available at comparatively reduced prices is that they may fit the requirement for the firingline use. For years my favorite load for big game in a 300 Wby has been a 180 grain Bitterroot Bonded Core. However since bill Steigers' passing, these bullets are no longer made, so the few that I have are used only for hunts. But I have found that the 180 grain Speer flat base spitzer produces similar velocity and sight settings as the BBC. So for load development, sighting and practice I use the Speers, then when time to hunt, I swap out to the BBCs, possibly firing a round or two at the target just to make sure nothing has changed. Seems that those that are concerned with Hornady terminal performance might see if the bullet with which they have confidence might print similarly to the Hornady, then use both, one for each function.
Lol. Care to explain? I like to think my understanding of Western political military history is pretty extensive - formal education and otherwise. And I am old enough to have been through any number of “revisions.”
You made, shall we say, a novel ascertain now followed by a nonsensical insult. It was so novel that I assumed you were confused about which war. But perhaps you are merely confused? And I just reread your original post - it still makes no sense. Are you talking about WWI (the Great War) or events leading up to WWII? If the latter, both Wilson and France abetted by Loyd George did indeed set post-war conditions that made WWII almost inevitable. And France made economic and military decisions that made victory in 1940 virtually impossible. But I have no earthly idea what you really said.
When I read post #586, I had a feeling I might need to get some popcorn ready.
And because its pertinent to the post, please see below link for the French word for popcorn.
Does it make me bi-lingual if I know a french word?
I think we are way past popcorn... maybe a nice French wine?
I took a bit of time to look back at my logs of shots taken on game for the last year. Over 60% were Hornady bullets....BUT all of those were on small soft skinned game like varmits etc. I have taken whitetail with Hornady, but have been moving toward Barnes and others as my supply runs out. I have never taken Hornady on a guided trip or used on large game like bear, moose, sheep or anything in Africa. I know most of you think I am a Hornady detractor, I just use them for very specific types of game. I will not spend thousands on trophy fees and risk wounding an animal or putting myself or a tracker in danger to save less than a couple of bucks on ammunition.
When making posts on AH, I try not to do the following:
1. Argue military history with Joe.
Yea, that's about it. All else is fair game.
So maybe if they hate on them enough we can have cheaper plinking bullets for our big rifles? That'd be great...plinking with my .375 every day...
I find several .375 bullets suitable for plinking, eg 235 gr Speer; I keep hoping someone will make a .423" bullut that will sell for about $.25 so I could really limber up the 404.
Let's cut back to 2016 :
Excited Hoss Delgado goes to Australia with his .375 HH Magnum Winchester Model 70 along with 2 boxes of 300 grain Hornady DGS ( Dangerous Game Solids ) which he received for his birthday . Eager to try on a Water Buffalo. His friend , Evan uses a .470 Nitro Express Double Rifle loaded with Federal Solids. Hoss shoots a Water Buffalo with a DGS behind the shoulder for a standard heart shot. The Buffalo drops . All is well... Until the Buffalo springs up again and and is facing Hoss and Evan. Hoss Fires again . He can hear the Bullet finding it's Mark... Only the Buffalo doesn't seem to understand that it is shot and runs the other way. Evan shoots the Buffalo once , right through the Lungs with his .470 Nitro Express. In 50 yards ( rough estimate ) the animal drops dead.
Upon Hoss , Evan and the others butchering the animal , they find out that the two Hornady DG Solids went some 7 inches in . Penetration was like Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.... A tragedy .
In All seriousness , Avoid Hornady Bullets !!!!
I now use Winchester Noslers , Cutting Edge Monolithic meplat brass Solids , Kynoch Round nosed full patch solids and Swift A frames
Point you are making is noted, however a broken fishing rod or broken pack strap does not have the potential to kill you(or so slight that it really cannot be considered as life threatening), crap bullets on DG most certainly have.
If you go for a once in a lifetime marlin fishing trip or intend climbing Mount Everest or spending a lot of money on a once in a lifetime DG safari, do you buy equipment with a known failure rate or do you buy something with a proven track record?
I know what I would buy and use, others can use their own discretion and use what they want but for hunting it will not be Hornady for me....
I think the same as you IvW.
World War I (“The Great War” 1914-1918) Combat deaths and missing in action:
(Military Casualties-World War-Estimated, Statistics Branch, GS, War Department, 25 February 1924).
(Österreichischen Bundesministerium für Herrswesen (1938)).
(Huber, Michel. French Population During the War (1931)).
United Kingdom & colonies: 744,000
(International Labour Office, Berger-Levrault, 1923–25).
(Military Casualties-World War-Estimated," Statistics Branch, GS, War Department, 25 February 1924).
United States: 53,402
(Military Casualties-World War-Estimated, Statistics Branch, GS, War Department, 25 February 1924).
Surely, the US War Department, Statistics Branch 1920's personnel etc. are not the "liberal history revisioners" you mention Ray B.
I suspect that Red Leg is correct in his deduction that we may be mixing WWI (1914-1918) and WWII (1939-1945) here:
So, to clarify:
1- WWI, "the Great War" (1914-1918) was essentially won by the French (1.1 million casualties) with the help of the United Kingdom (744,ooo casualties), and indeed the United States (53,000 casualties) - Russia was defeated in 1917 and signed a separate peace with Germany - but the US only joined the war in 1917, and the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) under General John J. Pershing only launched their first major offensive in Europe as an independent army on September 12, 1918, soon before the war ended in November 1918, to which, clearly, the American troops contributed significantly.
2- In WWII (1939-1945), France was indeed a leading cause in their loss of the 1940 Battle of France (although the British did not fare any better - see Dunkirk...) due to essentially inept command and obsolete strategy and economic investments based on static fortifications that the German simply outmaneuvered and bypassed. Nonetheless, approximately 92,000 French soldiers were killed in the fighting of May and June 1940 while killing approximately 50,000 Germans.
Actually, few people realize that getting across 300 miles of France to the Channel was as costly to the German in 1940 (50,000 casualties over 300 miles), as getting to Moscow in 1941 (122,000 casualties over 800 miles). Myths notwithstanding, the French army was indeed soundly defeated in 1940, but this was no pick-nick for the Wehrmacht...
It must also be noted that neither Poland, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, the Netherlands, Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Russia, etc. did any better than France resisting the totally - and brilliant - new German mechanized and close air support strategy that pioneered what is now understood as "joint forces strategy," and the 1940 German "Blitzkrieg" (Lightning War) promoted by Guderian, Rommel, etc. that ultimately developed in the modern "shock & awe" concept. England was only saved from German occupation in 1940 by the Channel; it actually took the British quite a while until the end of 1941 to adapt to the new mechanized war in Africa; the Russians were only saved by "General Winter" at the gates of Moscow; and US troops themselves were soundly rooted in their baptism of mechanized fire at Kasserine Pass in 1943...
I hope the above considerations - by necessity very simplified in the interest of space - were of interest to the many history buffs (pun fully intended) on AH...
Separate names with a comma.