Premium Bullets: GS Custom Bullets

That is subsonic aerodynamics. Once the velocity is over Mach 1.2 there is a change how drag manifests, and then again beyond the critical drag rise Mach number (Mach cdr). Mach 1.8 is a turning point again and we are in the Mach 2.0 regime here.

I must disagree, if only by the Ballistic Coefficients published by the manufacturers. This is why the new automobiles have rounded fronts, etc. The flat fronts create turbulence. Tests prove this to be fact.

The total drag (profile and skin friction) on a straight angled nose to the virtually flat point is less than had the bullet been slightly shorter in the classic straight shank and round nose design like the original Hornady 500 gr FMJs.

Neat! Actually though, the average would be between .149 and .173. My software has slots for these so I will recompute.

Entering the entire table I get 2073 fps at 50 yards.

Look at this here. The .149 is for the drag coefficient of 2,700 ft/sec and up.

http://www.gsgroup.co.za/458450FN049.html

I looked at their web site and it showed 0.149, not 0.173. Maybe a different page than the one I was looking for? I did not see a breakdown of velocity vs BC.

Michael wrote: "The 0.149 BC 450g flat head looses velocity extremely fast according to my ballistics software, which is very well respected. From 2350 fps at muzzle to 2073 fps at 50 yards."

The BC at the average velocity of that bullet if launched at 2,350 ft/sec is .173. My calculator shows 2,114 ft/sec at 50 yds which is just above the theoretical minimum we want.

I only had time last night to thoroughly read through the GSC website. Being a specialist in quality management systems and inter alia cnc production quality control and quality assurance processes I appreciated what is shared here:

http://www.gsgroup.co.za/12about.html

I agree with that assessment. It is actually with great pleasure I note this has turned around. One thing though. The 0.149 BC 450g flat head looses velocity extremely fast according to my ballistics software, which is very well respected. From 2350 fps at muzzle to 2073 fps at 50 yards.

Of course - both have an influence - but it still is not the rated velocity for the load. With the crimp added the rated pressure and velocity will be achieved.

Notice that the 3.48" shot had 2.3 grains more powder than the first shot, as allowed by the increase in volume. This may have had more to do with the increased velocity than the lands.

The classic demonstration that a very slippery bullet needs mechanical hold-back for the pressure curve to gain its required slope in order for the rated pressure to be achieved, and for the correct, fast burning propellant to be used to fill the increasing volume behind the departing bullet with expanding gas at a rate which is quicker than the rate of volume increase.

The extended bullet had that mechanical hold-back supplied by the lands. Crimping the bullet will give it the extra needed hold back and higher inertia to ensure the proper pressure slope for 2,350 ft/sec which is achieved with a standard cartridge length.

Today, Sunday June 4, 2017 I continued my efforts to prep my 458 Winchester Magnum and my 35 Whelen for upcoming adventures in Africa.

I took five shots with the 450g GC Flat Head bullets using BLC2 Powder.

Note that I based this first BLC2 effort on known loads for conventional bullets, planning to use velocity to gauge pressure in accordance with Quickload. I find Quickload accurate for relative changes to book loads, if not always so accurate with absolute calculations.

First Shot: COAL 3.278", 78g Powder No crimp: 2236 fps.

Second Shot same as first with gas check: 2230 fps. Realize the first shot was with a clean, lubricated barrel, so I take this result to mean the gas check made no difference.

Third Shot: COAL 3.25", 78g Powder Crimped : 2286 fps.

Fourth Shot: COAL 3.278", 79.2g Powder, not crimped: 2273 fps **

Fifth Shot: COAL 3.48" hand inserted, 81.5g Powder not crimped: 2316 fps **

There were no over pressure signs at all, and the action cycled smoothly.

So it looks like by simply crimping the loads of the 4th and 5th Shots I am in the 2325-2366 fps range. I consider this a success, and hope to verify the scope settings next time out. I notice that at 25 yards the bullets were hitting in the same place as the Barnes 450g TSXFB. According to the ballistics, the GC Flat Head drops off away from the TSX considerably after 100 yards.

The 35 Whelen needs a little more powder because I was getting 2657 fps first shot with a conservative load of BLC2 and Barnes 225g TSXB bullets. I can kick this up a bit to 2700 fps.

Test related comments to be posted in the Bullet Behaviour Category.

Asked around here - popular bullets in all the categories - .375 H&H and the .458s particularly. Demand outstrips production.

You know the Barnes 450 Banded Solid has a huge band at the bottom. The whole bottom 20% of the cartridge is a solid band. In my opinion GS should take note of this. I am getting 2285 fps out of Factory ammo there.

That's if I can get the GS to 2300 fps at the muzzle. The others are already proven.

The 450 TSXFB is 2117.8 at 50 yards. The 450 banded solid is 2170 at 50 yards. The GS 450g is 2026.8 at 50 yards. The Hornady 480g steel jacket is 2056.5 at 50 yards.

Say again the weight of the Barnes and velocity at 50 yards?

Any amount of engraving into the bands by the rifling will rotate the bullet without longitudinal slippage so I doubt if gyroscopic rigidity will suffer.

Some rifles, especially the most accurate from my experience, have very shallow rifling. That is the case with this rifle. It is a custom barrel, not fired much by the old gentleman I got it from. Got it from his wife actually after he died, for a song so to speak. That, combined with the thin bands may be a combined problem. If that is the case, the gas check should help. On another note, without good contact perhaps the spin will suffer. Won't know unless I can get the speed up. They landed in the same group as the Barnes sight in rounds, about two inches lower at 50 yards anyway. Did not shoot but two GS and then knocked the rest out. Then the Barnes were all inside 3/4" at 100 yards after they got sighted in. Those are still 4,010 foot pounds at 100 yards. Even if I get the GS up to 2300 fps they will be 3142 foot pounds at 100 yards.

The general experience out here is that most of the imported (from USA) ammunition have thin walled cases. I had recent experience of new Remington cases for my .303 and which I had to discard after the first reload. That was a darn disgrace in fact. The only Remington product I still buy is their primers when I can not get local PMP primers.

Cassie related a light grip experience of GRC and Winchester cases in his 30-06. My own opinion is that with the driving bands the bullet friction is already low and a minute increase in driving band diameter may just be beneficial all round. A barrel slug always has value. In Colorado we in fact are setting up a slug archive system of all the rifles we shoot.

Yep, still not enough information to have a cause of the low pressure.

Quite possible. Less powder space available however. Jury still out. After my next outing, more data available. I don't have any way to capture a bullet at the federal range. Need my private hunting lease for that adventure.

Also, I am using Hornady cases, but they are the same as Winchester I believe. After a load fails I usually pull the remaining un-fired bullets to re-use with a different load. When I knocked the GS bullets out of the cases they came out with hardly any effort at all, wheras I must beat the kinetic puller really hard to get the Barnes bullets out. The difference is very noticeable.

Talked to Cassie Nienaber (internal/intermediate ballistics expert - Gerard may know of him). Two things:

a) the drive bands of GSC certainly make for a less tight bearing surface in the case mouth.

b) combined with the known Winchester / Remington thin walled cases this may very well produce low starting pressure. PMP cases would mitigate that.

Thanks for the theoretical, Gerard Sir. I measured the bands on this GS bullet to be .4570. I measured the Barnes bullet at 0.4575 with 0.443 channels. My lead bullets are 0.459 and the gas check shown is 0.461. As far as I can determine, there is one band of the GS bullet in the case when the nose hits resistance. I suppose my digital caliper is not lab quality, but the other measurements confirm it is correct with regard to them, so maybe it is wrong ONLY on the GS bullet? I have not slugged my barrel, but know that the Barnes bullets shoot more or less as Quickload predicts. The one session I have had with the GS bullets showed over 200 fps less than Quickload calcs using the data off the GS web site and with the low friction unchecked. To make certain this was not just a bad batch of Win 748, I am going to try what I know is a good batch of BLC2 and / or Xterminator. If the bullets pan out in that test and match the predictions more or less with accuracy, then very good even if I must gas check them.

'Recovered', as I understand it, means recovering a bullet from a target after it is fired. We never let seconds out the door, we do not know the meaning of seconds, a bullet is either good or not good. The technical specification is either met or the bullet is scrapped. Our spec from batch to batch and within a batch is the tightest in the industry. From this page: http://www.gsgroup.co.za/12about.html

Bullet Design and Q&A

GSC bullets are designed to the following standard:

Diameter tolerance: + or - 0.005mm (0.0002").

Length tolerance: + or - 0.10mm (0.004").

Weight is within 0.25% of the stated weight.

Uniformity of ogive curve: - + or - 0.005mm (0.0002").

This is an overall standard that is maintained from batch to batch - not just within a batch.

This is not a recovered bullet and your claimed measurements are not jiving mine in hand. Just saying wondering if I have seconds?

"The bullet base is convex, not concave". Sorry misread that so was stating the obvious and unrelated to the topic - staying up after midnight to not miss out on the information...

Recovered bullets will tell what happened in the freebore and the barrel. It does not matter if they are deformed, the shaft of the bullets will show whether they sealed or not and whether there was gas blow by.

The GSC FN bullet is 11.64 mm (.4583") in diameter and the throat of a .458WinMag is .469", just ahead of the case mouth, tapering to .450" over a distance of 1.115". The distance from first to last drivebands is 0.567" so there is no question that the FN bullet will seal the gas in the throat of the barrel, if the rifle has a CIP/SAAMI specification chamber. The bullet also has a boat tail with a 6 degree taper and the boat tail is 0.177" long. That is the reason why the last drive band is not at the base of the bullet.

The bullet is designed to work terminally on bone and tissue and any change of dimensions or adding or subtracting of weight will detract from the terminal performance of the bullet.

Here is a photo of the gas checked GS 450 .458 Flathead. I bore down on this with calipers and they hit the gas check first. That tells me the bullet bands are not as tight in the barrel as the gas check. I use these gas checks on 425g Hard Cast Lead bullets for my 45/70 double rifle and they work splendidly to give me 1850 fps with AA2495 powder. I will shoot this bullet next weekend to compare with a non-gas checked bullet. I suspect there will be a difference in velocity. This bullet was extracted from an unfired round. It drops right to the bottom of a fired case without the gas check.

I will also hand insert one that is as long as possible to see how that one compares in velocity to the box ready rounds..

The bullet base is convex, not concave. Kinda like an ultra short boat tail. Let's wait till after the BLC2 test next weekend, though I might gas check one just for test. I will also measure the bullet tonight against the case and the freebore. I will try to determine if there is still a rear band in the case when the top band hits the throat ring. Although I know for certain that once the case expands in the chamber the bands no longer engage the case. This I know because the bullets will simply drop into a fired case. The Barnes bullets will slide into a fired case but must be helped just a bit. So the statement that the Barnes bullets are smaller in diameter is not correct.

A flat base bullet and a boat tail bullet of the same weight, make and style has a longer shaft in contact with the barrel and therefore creates more pressure. Pressure and speed go together.

The latest I have from Somchem on 400gr from the .458 Win Mag is the Speer FN at just under 2,500 ft/sec with S321, and just under 2,100 ft/sec for the 500gr Hornady FMJ. This is the bullet that wobbles after entering the dense muscle, bends and then deflects itself.

The concave base: It increases the area for the direct applied pressure force. The same reason why a a flat based bullet, with all other features being similar will always have a higher muzzle velocity than a boat tail.

There is no gas blow by with a GSC bullet. The front drive band seals against blow by in the freebore already. All that is needed is to have the front drive band somewhere ahead of the case mouth. As far as the bases are concerned, Barnes stamp/swage their bullets and it is not possible to make them shaped like the GSC which is turned and shaped like that for a reason.

Terminology: I suspect that we are calling different things by different names. I understand that the chamber ahead of the case mouth has the freebore and then the leade. Together they form the throat. On the bullet the drive bands and the shaft of the bullet have a diameter. The width of the drive bands vary. We do not use the term thickness at all.

The shape of a GSC bullet should not be altered. No work by hand can be as precise as work with a CNC lathe and, once a bullet is made and cut off the bar, it can never be held true (without runout) for a second operation.

QuickLoad needs two modifications to work with GSC bullets. Make sure that the Friction-proofed box is unchecked. Whatever QuickLoad gives as the Weighting Factor, subtract 0.10 from that figure.

GSC has a QuickLoad file on the South African site on the Usefull Stuff page. Delete the gsbullet.bul file that comes with QuickLoad and use the GSC file that we supply.

There is fierce competition here, this secrets are kept if possible. I will check the figures in Quickload tonight, and compare BLC2 to S321. I ran the simulation using S321 and it looked really good, better than Xterminator but not as good as BLC2. Unfortunately it will be me testing the BLC2 application, although there are records of it being used with a 400g 458inMag soft nose at the top of the velocity chart for that bullet. Checkout ammoguide.com. You will see records of many of my loads for many calibers on that site. That is if you pay the registration fee of $28.00.

I have never seen published thermodynamic figures for US manufactured propellants. Here it is available for every batch of every type: Like for instance here are the figures for the latest S321 to compare with BLC2 vs. this bullet: Important is Specific Energy:

Flame Temperature| Specific Energy | Heat of Explosion | Density

2,928 deg Kelvin | 1, 019 Joule/gm powder| 3,667 Joule/gm powder | 1.59 gm/c

Also, the gas checks go onto an indention at the base of the lead bullet, which are about the same diameter as the non banded base. I will check this out later today.

The base of the GS bullet is not flat, but convex. Why, I don't know. The Barnes flat bases are just that, flat.

A novel plan that - to use a gas check to check for possible blow by - as long as the sanding can be done by a perfectly squarely aligned machine :-). The result will no doubt show if lack of timely driving band engagement is the issue.

Then again - why sanding? The gas check will still not fit snugly onto the base diameter, the bullet shank being smaller than bore diameter.

I have not checked on BLC burn rate, but if it is like S321 it will be quicker than RL10 - and a steeper pressure slope meaning higher specific energy meaning higher pressure in my opinion is what you need.

According to my info I cannot get past 2100 fps with RL 7. So BLC2 is the only chance. Or I can sand the bullet base flat and add my own gas check. I have 1000 of them for the lead bullet I put through my double rifle!

From the sidelines I should comment that loading the bullet closer to the lands would be one way to negate a possible momentary free flow of gas. Certainly you have a low pressure issue: the lowered recoil indicates low muzzle pressure indicating lower than rated pressure for the load.

The initial flame temperature and rate of pressure rise is a function of immediate inertial resistance by the bullet to move. Your bullet appears to move out too rapidly for the burn rate of your propellant, causing a too rapidly expanding combustion chamber behind the bullet.

With the enforced bullet seating depth you have away from the lands the only aid to initial resistance you have is the crimp. This means you need a faster burning propellant.

748 and RL10 have virtually the same burn rate

Somcem S321 burn rate is exactly halfway between RL 10 and RL7.

In your case I would go with RL7 (or equivalent). Yes, pity you do not have the S321 there.

I see the logic expressed, Gerard. Thank you. My question though, as brought about by my failed test with these bullets and 75g Win 748 reached only 2130 fps. A nice crisp shot that was actually pleasant compared to my other rounds tested. This all indicated a gas blow by? The freebore in my rifle with these bullets could cause (possibly mind you) an instant in time where the last band has passed the case and the first band has not reached the lands, or if not that - not enough bands in the case. So, I am wondering why the bottom band is not thicker and at the bottom of the bullet?

The normal way with smooth or grooved bullets is that, seated at the maximum col that the chamber of the rifle will tolerate (not the magazine box), pressure is at the maximum level (not maximum pressure). Pressure level is caused by proximity of the bullet to the rifling and by case volume. As the bullet is moved deeper into the case, pressure reduces, but the lesser case volume that is caused by shortening the col, increases pressure. Initially, the proximity to the rifling is more important so the overall pressure level drops. There comes a point where the diminishing case volume becomes more important and overall pressure rises again.

With drive band bullets the relationship between these two factors is somewhat different. The proximity of the bullet to the rifling does not play as big a role as in the scenario above and, moving away from the rifling causes an overall pressure drop but overall pressure rises again, as a result of diminishing case volume, sooner. However, the difference between pressure levels is not as marked as with smooth or grooved bullets.

The easy way to check relative presure is to compare speeds. Pressure and speed go together - higher pressure = higher speed.

http://www.gsgroup.co.za/pressurechart.jpg

The chart, together with other useful information, can be found at this page: http://www.gsgroup.co.za/faqseating.html

A word on pressure and speed: Smooth and grooved monometallic bullets are generally made under size by one or two thousandths of an inch (25 to 50 micron). This is done to control the initial rise of pressure, otherwise pressure would rise too fast. Unfortunately, it causes gas to blow by the bullet all the way to the muzzle of the rifle and, especially in the throat area, it causes erosion of the throat.

GSC drive band bullets are on size for the bore and seal all the gas behind it, using all the pressure generated to drive the bullet.

Thank you Gerard, a pleasing, objective response. I do have a follow-up question regarding the last answer - and I assume you silently referred to inherent accuracy being independent of bullet seating. Having experience with long throated 7x57 chambers and getting the same excellent result with all bullets from 139gr-175 gr I understand that. My new question is more related to thermo dynamics:

Uncoated solid copper bullets with smooth or even grooved shanks have a distinctly higher friction coefficient and therefor more inertia than coated bullets with narrow drive bands. Similarly, seated same distance away from the lands a .458" 450gr FP GSC will have a lesser inertial reluctance to move with increasing gas pressure than a similar Barnes weight Barnes TSX.

I believe Pierre vd. Walt agrees with me that due to its lower friction coefficient and inertia the GSC bullet benefits from being seated against the lands, resulting in now having sufficient inertia to allow for proper gas expansion rate, and for the rated pressure to be achieved before the barrel volume behind the departing bullet has expanded too much.

Is my assumption correct that the above mentioned 458450FN, in a .458 Win Mag, if seated at a maximum OAL of .100" away from the lands may suffer a pressure curve peaking later than what is needed, and therefor possibly not achieve the rated pressure for the load?

The question stems from the test results member frhunter13 obtained with the above bullets. His rifle magazine requires that deep seating, and his velocity was consistently about 200 ft/sec below the QuickLoad predictions. Unless his bore experiences gas blow by the above explanation seems valid to me. Your opinion please.

What is the bottom line of your bullet design to achieve this international recognition for outstanding accuracy? There are two qualities that GSC has and these two qualities are written in stone: 1. At GSC we believe in checking and checking and checking again. Our quality control is such that every bullet is measured four times and weighed twice by two different people. Once by the bullet smith who makes the bullets and once by the person who does quality control. Not every 100th or every 10th bullet, every bullet. We never 'check up' what another person is doing but we do check one another's work because two heads are better than one. We are all human and we all make mistakes. When a customer sees a mistake, it is embarrasing. When we catch a mistake, we say 'good catch, it is good that did not get out to the customer'. 2. We do not use swiss automatic lathes. (Swiss automatic lathes are not made in Switzerland, it is a type of machine and it works incredibly fast. It could be made in China, Taiwan or Korea.)

In short - what were the drivers for the nose section designs of your HV and FN series bullets? The HV range nose design is based on the fact that the bullet must first kill game as effectively as possible. If the strike speed is 2600fps to 2700fps the petals open and forms the wound channel, then come off the shaft and the shaft continues as a flat fronted cylinder. Effectively, once the petals are off, it becomes an FN bullet and a flat nose causes more disruption to tissue and bone than any other shape, including a rounded double calibre mushroom. If the strike speed is less than 2500fps and as low as 1600fps, the bullet retains the petals and opens to roughly a double caliber mushroom. See these pages for a full explanation. http://www.gsgroup.co.za/faqdesign.html and http://www.gsgroup.co.za/faqexpansion.html and http://www.gsgroup.co.za/expansionwindow.html

Not asking for trade secrets but can you please share some design reviews regarding this issue and subsequent evolving of your bullet coating? GSC found that varying stages of oxidisation of the bullet surface would make a difference in where the bullet would impact on a target. The differences were not earth shattering but there were differences. After some time, I boiled it down to varying thicknesses and hardness of the oxidisation that forms on a bullet surface as it ages. From the moment a bullet is manufactured, the surface starts oxidizing and, as time goes by, a tarnished surface develops. I experimented with bullet coatings as early as 1982 and what I found at that stage, developed into the method of coating GSC uses on copper bullets. It is firstly to create a stable surface that will not cause a change in point of impact, no matter how much the bullet is handled and what the age of the bullet is. Secondly, the coating lowers the friction and the temperature of going down the barrel of a rifle. See: http://www.gsgroup.co.za/faqcoating.html

Bullet jump to the rifling: There is a rule, that is cast in concrete and that rule cannot be changed. The rule is: Where GSC bullets are concerned, there are no rules.

OK. I stand corrected. In my defence, we don't get such news here in the USA unless we go hunting for it! For one thing, these days all they do is bash Trump. I won't even look up the Barnes origins but I know it was an entire generation ago. They did not start with the copper thing that long ago though, it seems.

Thank you Gerard, a factual history line that will surprise many, I am sure.

It is a pleasure to welcome the USA manufacturer of GS Custom bullets himself on board this forum. "Bullet-Behaviour" is at that humble phase of beginning a credible information resource at an international level. FACTUAL INFORMATION as opposed to feelings, beliefs, assumptions, speculation, or paralysing circuitous analyses is what drives our content. Proudly so.

You have already answered the first question I had in mind - the history of GSC. Here are a few more:

1. The GSC website shows an impressively long list of users inter alia from the USA, Australia, Scandinavia, Germany who share photos and statements of often incredible accuracy using all your categories and calibres of bullets. What is the bottom line of your bullet design to achieve this international recognition for outstanding accuracy?

2. Similarly I read the scores of voluntary statements from international users related to on-game performance. This relates to one question I had - and I have studied Pierre van der Walt's excellent dissertation on the physics of in-flesh stability versus in-flight stability: In short - what were the drivers for the nose section designs of your HV and FP series bullets?

3. Copper bullet surface coating to decrease friction: It is known that Molybdenum Disulphide interacts with the atmosphere to form corrosive substances in the barrel. Boron Nitride and Tungsten Disulphide are other options. Not asking for trade secrets but can you please share some design reviews regarding this issue and subsequent evolving of your bullet coating?

4. Due to the friction of pure, flat surface copper bullets the manufacturers of these (like Barnes) give the valid advice to seat the first contact radial of the bullet some distance short of the rifling. Please can you share the GSC advice regarding this important issue for reloaders?

No doubt members will have other specific questions and they are invited to field them here.

The time line, as I have it for monometallic bullets, is as follows:

1986 - The first Barnes X swaged/pressed bullets are available to the public in USA.

1988 - Goodnel bullets enter the market in South Africa with turned bullets.

1992 - GSC starts manufacture of  turned copper bullets with the HP range.

1994 - The West's arms embargo against SA is lifted.

1994 - Goodnel (SA) launches a brass tipped hollow point - the Bushmaster.

1997 - GSC patents and launches the drive band copper HV and FN bullets.

1999 - GSC launches the copper GSC SP (tactical/target) drive band bullets.

2000 - GSC enters the global bullet market.

2001- GSC starts exporting to the USA, Europe and Australia/NZ.

2001 - Barnes launches the swaged/pressed, blue coated copper XLC bullet.

2002 - GSC supplies bullets ordered by Lutz Müller of Germany.

2002 - GSC supplies samples requested by a barrel maker in Montana USA.

2002 - Ferrobul in Norway launches a copper grooved bullet.

2002 - Hansen (Germany) launches a flat nosed solid copper/steel bimetal bullet.

2002 - Lost River launches a bronze nickel alloy turned tipped bullet.

2003 - Bridger Bullets of Montana start manufacturing brass copies of the bullets GSC supplied to the barrel maker.

2003 - GSC supplies bullets ordered by Don ?? from Texas.

2003 - Impala (SA) launches a brass grooved conical solid.

2003 - Lutz Müller visits GSC on the pretext that he wants the GSC distributorship in Europe.

2003 - Lutz Müller lodges a German patent on the GSC drive band concept and starts manufacturing copper KJG drive band bullets.

2004 - Northfork starts development of a grooved, flat nosed copper solid.

2004 -  Groove Bullets, owned by Don ?? starts manufacturing copper bullets in Texas.

2004 - Goodnel stops producing bullets and continues in stainless steel goods.

2004 - Barnes launches the copper TSX grooved bullet and starts discontinuing the X and coated XLC bullets.

2004 - GSC supplies bullets ordered by Michael Mayrl in Austria.

2004 - GSC declines to supply bullets to Gian Marchet in Austria.

2004 - Rhino (South Africa) launches new solid brass truncated round nose grooved solid and discontinues their jacketed lead solid.

2005 - Northfork completes development of their copper FN solid. The front of the bullet looks remarkably like the GSC FN solid.

2005 - Groove bullets go out of business.

2005 - Bridger Bullets go out of business.

2005 - Dzombo launches a brass flat nosed (truncated round nose) grooved solid.

2005 - Gian Marchet (Austria) starts manufacturing copper drive band bullets.

2005 - Mayrl Bullets (Germany) starts manufacturing copper drive band bullets.

2005 - PBP in Norway starts manufacturing copper drive band bullets.

2006 - Mayrl withdraws from the market after an alleged scrap with KJG.

2006 - Frontier Bullets (SA) launches a copper copy of the Barnes TSX.

2006 - Barnes launches a turned, flat nosed, grooved, solid bullet in brass.

2006 - Lutz Müller's patent is terminated.

2006 - Mayrl re-enters the market with new designs as Styria Arms.

2006 - Barnes launches the tipped bi-metal copper/tungsten MRX. It is swaged/pressed.

2007 - Jaguar Geschoss (Germany) launches a copper drive band hollow point.

2007 - Nosler launches the gilding metal E-Tip tipped mono hollow point.

2007 - Barnes launches the tipped TSX.

2007 - Lost River goes out of business.

2008 - Hornady launches the gilding metal GMX.

2008 - Northfork goes out of business.

2009 - Northfork bought by new management, relocated and back in business.

2010 - Barnes Bullets bought by Freedom Group (who also owns Remington)

2011 - Barnes discontinues the MRX line and the FN grooved solid.

2012 - The ATF announces several brass solids classified as 'armour piercing' and prevents several manufacturers from further production. Copper solids are unaffected. 2012 - GSC starts a branch and manufactures turned bullets in the USA.

Well I am glad Barnes invented the concept so that others could improve on their X and TSX. From what I see, these flatheads are awesome improvements. Still don't know if they will cycle well, but I will within a few days. It's also a relief that good dangerous game bullets are available outside of our paranoid BATF controlled industry!

As for the .458 Winchester, I believe it got its bad rep from bad powder that was gumming up under compression. I firmly believe that it can reach it's potential with these 450g flatheads and the modern low volume powders such as AA 2230. Ironically however, it's one of the older yet improved Winchester powders (748) that produce less pressure per velocity with this bullet. However 5% compression is required to reach max velocity with either.