Woodleigh Bullets - re-opening ?

[jamesr22734]

I

Any idea of when .470s (.474) would be in production?

just brought some .474 projectiles today

 

[rookhawk]

I

just brought some .474 projectiles today

Let’s be specific. Were they Woodleigh hydros that have been available all along, softs that don’t matter as there are alternatives, or are they traditional FMJ?

 

[jamesr22734]

Let’s be specific. Were they Woodleigh hydros that have been available all along, softs that don’t matter as there are alternatives, or are they traditional FMJ?

Woodleigh 500gr RNSP

 

[Aussie_Hunter]

Let’s be specific. Were they Woodleigh hydros that have been available all along, softs that don’t matter as there are alternatives, or are they traditional FMJ?

Softs that don’t matter because there are alternatives? Pretty confident in saying there is not another bullet manufacturer on the planet that makes the range of projectiles that Woodleigh makes for big bore and rare calibres. To say that Woodleigh softs not being available doesn’t matter because there are alternatives is insulting IMHO. Hornady and Bertram are also great supporters of the big bore calibres but I don’t think anyone beats Woodleigh

 

[rookhawk]

Softs that don’t matter because there are alternatives? Pretty confident in saying there is not another bullet manufacturer on the planet that makes the range of projectiles that Woodleigh makes for big bore and rare calibres. To say that Woodleigh softs not being available doesn’t matter because there are alternatives is insulting IMHO. Hornady and Bertram are also great supporters of the big bore calibres but I don’t think anyone beats Woodleigh

I wasn’t alluding to feelings that people want Woodleigh to succeed, I was trying to fact-check your statement.

1.) Hyrdos were available within days after the fire. So if people say I just bought woodleighs, and they are hydros, that means nothing.

2.) If Woodleigh is making softs for 470NE, that’s nice, but doesn’t change anyone’s world because there are a number of softs available from TBBC, to DGX, A-Frame, and a dozen more.

3.) But if Woodleigh is making 470NE FMJ solids again, that would be critically important. There are a handful of FMJs in the world that will work on a vintage double (no monometal solids allowed) and Woodleigh was one of that tiny handful.

So what did you buy, #3, or irrelevant #1 or #2?

 

[CBH Australia]

I wasn’t alluding to feelings that people want Woodleigh to succeed, I was trying to fact-check your statement.

1.) Hyrdos were available within days after the fire. So if people say I just bought woodleighs, and they are hydros, that means nothing.

2.) If Woodleigh is making softs for 470NE, that’s nice, but doesn’t change anyone’s world because there are a number of softs available from TBBC, to DGX, A-Frame, and a dozen more.

3.) But if Woodleigh is making 470NE FMJ solids again, that would be critically important. There are a handful of FMJs in the world that will work on a vintage double (no monometal solids allowed) and Woodleigh was one of that tiny handful.

So what did you buy, #3, or irrelevant #1 or #2?

You are addressing the wrong person.

It was James who bought Woodleigh.

Here's hoping Woodleigh can get back to production of the full range of Projectiles

 

[rookhawk]

You are addressing the wrong person.

It was James who bought Woodleigh.

Here's hoping Woodleigh can get back to production of the full range of Projectiles

Indeed. And here's hoping if they don't, that they focus on those projectiles that have no alternative:

318WR softs/solids
Largebore FMJ solids
.577/.600 bullets

 

[Ray B]

I'm not sure what standard construction FMJs are safe to fire in vintage doubles. the problem expressed in e-mail conversations as well as a few books on the topic of double rifles was that strongly constructed FMJ bullets do not have sufficient "give" when being reduced to the constraints of the barrel. The result at a minimum is a barber pole effect on the outside of the barrel and possibly including a separation of the barrel from the connecting rib. Per Geoff MacDonald's advice the only monometal/FMJ bullet that I'll shoot in my 100+ year old Rigby is the hydro.

 

[rookhawk]

I'm not sure what standard construction FMJs are safe to fire in vintage doubles. the problem expressed in e-mail conversations as well as a few books on the topic of double rifles was that strongly constructed FMJ bullets do not have sufficient "give" when being reduced to the constraints of the barrel. The result at a minimum is a barber pole effect on the outside of the barrel and possibly including a separation of the barrel from the connecting rib. Per Geoff MacDonald's advice the only monometal/FMJ bullet that I'll shoot in my 100+ year old Rigby is the hydro.

That's the antithesis of all things I've every heard or read, @Ray B

Monometals are at least 22% larger via volume. Thus, they tend to "straighten the barrels" and can blow the ribs on vintage guns that weren't designed for them. Put another way, they don't move around corners very well, and double rifle tubes are curves.

Second, monos can be very hard. The whole point of an original woodleigh FMJ is that it is soft lead, plus a steel jacket, plus soft gilding metal exterior so it engraves gently in the rifling. A much harder alloy than gilding metal would be worse, and at least a lead core will yield whereas most monos will not, when squeezed by a tight spot in the barrels.

In vintage British doubles, the gold standard has always been woodleigh FMJ as they are replicas of the Kynoch bullets the gun was made to shoot 100-120 years ago.

 

[jamesr22734]

I wasn’t alluding to feelings that people want Woodleigh to succeed, I was trying to fact-check your statement.

1.) Hyrdos were available within days after the fire. So if people say I just bought woodleighs, and they are hydros, that means nothing.

2.) If Woodleigh is making softs for 470NE, that’s nice, but doesn’t change anyone’s world because there are a number of softs available from TBBC, to DGX, A-Frame, and a dozen more.

3.) But if Woodleigh is making 470NE FMJ solids again, that would be critically important. There are a handful of FMJs in the world that will work on a vintage double (no monometal solids allowed) and Woodleigh was one of that tiny handful.

So what did you buy, #3, or irrelevant #1 or #2?

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I just stated a fact. In Australia woodleigh are a much cheaper option then other projectiles even since the projectile prices have gone up since the factory burnt down.

 

[Josh P]

That's real nice, but we all know the 215gr 303 is what everyone is really after. Everything else is just gravy.

...right, guys?

 

[Ray B]

Given the option of risking the barrels on a 100+ year old Rigby to a posting on the Internet or information published by Pierre van der Walt, Graeme Wright, and Geoff McDonald, I will go with authenticated information. The issue is when strong steel jacketed with thin gilding coated bullets are pushed through the bore, particularly when the bullet is sized to the groove dimension. Even with a soft lead core the steel is too resistant to change so undue pressure is put on the lands portion of the barrel. the hardness of a monometal bullet may also cause a resistance to compression if the bullet is not sufficiently undersized to allow space for the shift in metal to adapt to the rifling.

As such, I only shoot bullets known to me to be of construction that will not injure the bore of the rifle. This includes but not limited to the Woodleigh bullets that are soft points and the Hydros (which are sufficiently undersized as noted above.

 

[rookhawk]

Given the option of risking the barrels on a 100+ year old Rigby to a posting on the Internet or information published by Pierre van der Walt, Graeme Wright, and Geoff McDonald, I will go with authenticated information. The issue is when strong steel jacketed with thin gilding coated bullets are pushed through the bore, particularly when the bullet is sized to the groove dimension. Even with a soft lead core the steel is too resistant to change so undue pressure is put on the lands portion of the barrel. the hardness of a monometal bullet may also cause a resistance to compression if the bullet is not sufficiently undersized to allow space for the shift in metal to adapt to the rifling.

As such, I only shoot bullets known to me to be of construction that will not injure the bore of the rifle. This includes but not limited to the Woodleigh bullets that are soft points and the Hydros (which are sufficiently undersized as noted above.

My info comes from Ken Owen and Ross Seyfried. Your info comes from Geoff. Those ideas mix like vinegar and water.

I’m not expert enough to know who is the lunatic, so I side with the one that services and regulates my doubles. (Ken)

 

[WAB]

Pretty simple solution, shoot Marc Newton a note and ask him.

 

[Hunter-Habib]

I..C.I Kynoch originally made their solid bullets with cupronickel jackets, except for the .416 Rigby (which they made with steel jackets as per the specifications of John Rigby & Co.). In 1956, Kynoch began to offer all of their solid bullets with steel jackets until Kynoch completely ceased manufacture of centerfire ammunition in 1972.

So any vintage English double rifle made AFTER 1956 is guaranteed to be safe with steel jacketed solid bullets. Because they were originally regulated for and proofed with steel jacketed Kynoch bullets. The employees at James Purdey & Co. told me this when I visited their London shop in 1976.

After 1939, John Rigby & Co. didn’t manufacture anymore double rifles until the 1990s. So the original Rigby double rifles made before 1939 were obviously NOT regulated with steel jacketed solid bullets. While they MIGHT be safe with steel jacketed solids, there’s absolutely no guarantee unlike their post 1956 counterparts.

@Ray B ’s 100 year old Rigby double is likely to be safer with Woodleigh Hydros than steel jacketed solids.

 

[rookhawk]

I..C.I Kynoch originally made their solid bullets with cupronickel jackets, except for the .416 Rigby (which they made with steel jackets as per the specifications of John Rigby & Co.). In 1956, Kynoch began to offer all of their solid bullets with steel jackets until Kynoch completely ceased manufacture of centerfire ammunition in 1972.

So any vintage English double rifle made AFTER 1956 is guaranteed to be safe with steel jacketed solid bullets. Because they were originally regulated for and proofed with steel jacketed Kynoch bullets. The employees at James Purdey & Co. told me this when I visited their London shop in 1976.

After 1939, John Rigby & Co. didn’t manufacture anymore double rifles until the 1990s. So the original Rigby double rifles made before 1939 were obviously NOT regulated with steel jacketed solid bullets. While they MIGHT be safe with steel jacketed solids, there’s absolutely no guarantee unlike their post 1956 counterparts.

@Ray B ’s 100 year old Rigby double is likely to be safer with Woodleigh Hydros than steel jacketed solids.

you're assuming the brinnel hardness of a hydro is less than the gilding metal of a FMJ. I don't have the data, but I would be surprised to find that a hydro that appears brass is softer than copper gilding metal. (the FMJ never touches the rifle)

 

[Hunter-Habib]

you're assuming the brinnel hardness of a hydro is less than the gilding metal of a FMJ. I don't have the data, but I would be surprised to find that a hydro that appears brass is softer than copper gilding metal. (the FMJ never touches the rifle)

Take the following into consideration:

When Geoff designed the Woodleigh Hydro... He ran them through multiple vintage double rifles (most manufactured prior to world war II) before making his assessment.

 

[jamesr22734]

I'm told Woodleigh won't be re-opening. I cannot find 400 grain hunting bullets for my 416 Remington.
This sort of thing is a major problem in Australia. (Not just for 416 caliber)

Have you managed to find any?

 

[Aussie_Hunter]

I wasn’t alluding to feelings that people want Woodleigh to succeed, I was trying to fact-check your statement.

1.) Hyrdos were available within days after the fire. So if people say I just bought woodleighs, and they are hydros, that means nothing.

2.) If Woodleigh is making softs for 470NE, that’s nice, but doesn’t change anyone’s world because there are a number of softs available from TBBC, to DGX, A-Frame, and a dozen more.

3.) But if Woodleigh is making 470NE FMJ solids again, that would be critically important. There are a handful of FMJs in the world that will work on a vintage double (no monometal solids allowed) and Woodleigh was one of that tiny handful.

So what did you buy, #3, or irrelevant #1 or #2?

2. Changes alot of peoples worlds, including mine. I can't understand the thinking that having one of the best bullet manufacturers in the world back up and running making softs doesn't change anyone's world. Also changes my bank account, Woodleighs are so reasonably priced compared to the competitors, especially in the big calibres.

 

[Aussie_Hunter]

Pretty simple solution, shoot Marc Newton a note and ask him.

And if he doesn't know I bet he could ask Paul Roberts