Woodleigh bullets anyone?

[Jaeger]

Does anyone have any experience with Woodleigh bullets?

 

I have been loading them for about two years and had only one experience with them on game.  A small doe with a 200gr PP out of a .338 Federal running at about 2650mv.  Complete pass through, good wound channel and short jump/run. 

 

Bullet was not recovered.

 

In target and load development, I pick them out of the dirt bank and, even after hitting rocks, most expanded well over 50%.  Soft and expand easily.

 

The really cool thing is that they really held together!  I've been getting about 187.5grains average recovered weights!

 

They are also very accurate for a hunting bullet.  As posted elsewhere, that load runs right about 0.347 c-t-c for 3 shots at 100yds off the bench.  (I measured  wrong when I reported 0.477 in a previous post, the outer edge to edge is .785 and I subtracted .308 not .338).

 

Any way, I know they are a little expensive, but not the most expensive bullets.  I guess I just like they are from Australia.

 

p.s., their new loading manual, from Midway, is great.

[Dinsdale]

Load the round nose conventional solids for 375H&H.

 

I have used them on tiny antelope to good success. Buried one in a Buffalo and it could be reloaded. LOL

 

 

I have some 9.3 PP to load but haven't had the time. I frequent a forum with many AU members and they get fine performance on game with them.

 

 

[Pygmy]

I have never used them, but they have an excellent reputation for performance on game.

 

I currently run Barnes X , TSX and TTSX for all my hunting loads in the 3 rifles that I use the most, a 7mm08, a .280 Rem, and a 9.3 x 62.

[soileauj]

I just got some Woodleigh's and Hawks. Only thing I find on the Woodleighs is very little data relating to COAL. I'm loading for several calibers so if anyone can provide some insight that would be great. Loading for 45-70, 35 Whelen, 7Rem Mag & 30-06.

Thanks

[Jaeger]

Please give us an initial impression of the quality of the Woodleighs vs. the Hawks.  I am looking at Hawks for my .475.

 

I'll check the Woodleigh manual to see what they say about COAL's.

[soileauj]

I will say that the Woodleighs look more refined than the Hawks. I am more impressed with the Woodleighs but tha may change once I make a range trip. Just ordered more Woodleighs for the 6.5 x 284 and & Rem Mag.The Woodleighs have a nice cannelure on them. I also found that on the 45-70's no matter how much I crimped the bullet still turned in the case. It won't move up or down but there is some movement.

Just my opinion initially.

[Jaeger]

I just got some Woodleigh's and Hawks. Only thing I find on the Woodleighs is very little data relating to COAL. I'm loading for several calibers so if anyone can provide some insight that would be great. Loading for 45-70, 35 Whelen, 7Rem Mag & 30-06.

Thanks

 

I just checked the Woodleigh loading manual, they specificall do NOT include any COAL data, just max case length and trim length.

 

Per the manual "COAL has not been included...as Woodleigh feels that it can be very misleading." and "there are a number of criteria that will dictate the usable COL in any individual rifle."  They do suggest finding the maximum COAL for your individual rifle by the various known methods.

 

Just thought you'd be interested in their philosophy behind not publishing coal data.

[soileauj]

Thanks Jaeger. I have the Woodlesigh manual as well and saw that. Also the same for the Hawks bullets. both inidicate to start at 5% lowerr than indicated in load manuals-for Hawk they state to use loads of simialr compositon. I'm working on the seating aspect using my datum measuring kit.

Thanks for the info