Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 47

Thread: Bullet constuction

  1. #1

    Default Bullet constuction

    I would like this to be a disscusion about bullet construction not caliber to use. For bear (GRIZ) not black which bullet would be best to use for both hunting 50 yards to 250 yard. And what bullet for protection lets say inside 50 yards. The NP, TBBC,A-Frame, or TSX. Let use the 300 WM as the caliber. Please tell me why for your choice such as penetration expansion etc. and feel free to add a bullet if you can think of another that may be better for the job at hand. Sorry to be so long winded but wanted to be understood.
    Thanks;

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cajun53 View Post
    I would like this to be a disscusion about bullet construction not caliber to use. For bear (GRIZ) not black which bullet would be best to use for both hunting 50 yards to 250 yard. And what bullet for protection lets say inside 50 yards. The NP, TBBC,A-Frame, or TSX. Let use the 300 WM as the caliber. Please tell me why for your choice such as penetration expansion etc. and feel free to add a bullet if you can think of another that may be better for the job at hand. Sorry to be so long winded but wanted to be understood.
    Thanks;
    180gr TSX without a doubt and the TBBC second, the A-Frame third and the NP fourth all good bullets.
    A GUN WRITER NEEDS:
    THE MIND OF A SCHOLAR
    THE HEART OF A CHILD
    THE HIDE OF A RHINOCEROS

  3. #3

    Default

    I would use the TSX because you can get more velocity out of it than an X bullet. It will open up good yet it will hold together on a close shot. Usually go all the way through and that includes it hits bone. Infact there is no better bullet today that will open up at high velocities up close or at slower velocities at distance and at the same time hold it's weight and integrity. It took me 10yrs. to finnally decide that if I wanted a bullet that would take away the guess work and fit any circumstance that I would find myself in whether up close or far off and still get the job done it is the X bullet but I did not like the X and the fouling problem but I do like the TSX. I have hunted hard for 30yrs on big dangerous game as well as a lot of deer and soft skin none dangerous game and I do not believe when it comes to a bullet that will work in most given circumstances that a hunter will find a better all around bullet like the TSX.
    A GUN WRITER NEEDS:
    THE MIND OF A SCHOLAR
    THE HEART OF A CHILD
    THE HIDE OF A RHINOCEROS

  4. #4

    Default

    Appriciate the feed back BT but why 180 gr. and not 200. Is it you just like the 180 or is there a certain advantage to the lighter bullet.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cajun53 View Post
    Appriciate the feed back BT but why 180 gr. and not 200. Is it you just like the 180 or is there a certain advantage to the lighter bullet.
    In the 300Win mag either would work just fine but flatter trajectory with 180gr and energy and bullet construction is more than able to do the job. Either would be fine.
    A GUN WRITER NEEDS:
    THE MIND OF A SCHOLAR
    THE HEART OF A CHILD
    THE HIDE OF A RHINOCEROS

  6. #6

    Default

    Thanks for the reply BT. I guess I have lived to see the day. No one has an opinion on fire arms.

  7. #7
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cajun53 View Post
    Thanks for the reply BT. I guess I have lived to see the day. No one has an opinion on fire arms.

    There are a lot of good bullets made in the world. Some are made to be the best at one particular purpose, others are made to be the best for another purpose. There isn't a very good match bullet that would double as the best hunting bullet out on the shelf. Now some "hunting" bullets are very accurate but, that's not the point.

    Your question; What is the best bullet construction for grizzly with the 300 mag?

    The best choice is one that can do what you want no matter what the circumstances might be. Under your control to some extent in the fields are a few things to do with the delivery of the bullet (marksmanship), the range at which you choose to shoot is, IF you are a discriminate hunter and/or good stalker.

    Now to have this bullet be effective under any and all circumstances it puts more pressure on the bullet. Well, yes, specifically it requires the absolute best terminal performance that can be found. It does not require the utmost in accuracy nor does it require the most streamline performance in flight. It does require that it deliver the goods in a swift and decisive manner. It does not need to be pointed to fly across the short distance, whether round nosed or spitzer, the 40 fps difference in arrival velocity will have no significance.

    Hunting bullets are designed to do their thing within certain impact velocity limitations. Most manufacturers advertise those limits but some are very optimistic. There is no such thing as a free lunch, well certainly not in physics.

    Another design limit for bullets has to do with just how strongly a "solidly" built do we need a bullet to be. For blacktail deer, a tough bullet is not required because the bones are small and the muscle mass is not so dense. For grizzly with larger bones and thick dense muscle mass, bullet requirements will be quite different.

    TBBC's are very strongly built- they would probably be at their best when fired at higher velocity and would be an edge for the higher velocity small bore calibers. 300 Wby, 300 RUM, basically any 300 mag. A good second choice here and likely the second toughest in dependable performance would be the Swift A-frame or at a little lower velocity the North Forks. Extra penetration is what is needed because we don't know the angle or the size of bones or muscle mass so we prepare for the worst of scenarios.

    Why the fifty yard minimum distance? The bullet/caliber should be able to perform from zero to 250 and the muzzle velocity must be used to determine expected bullet performance. We would be better to make the range from zero to say 200 yards which is reasonable. This is why it is better to use calibers/bullets designed for good close range performance because the only failure they will have at longer range is they will "over penetrate" due to lower velocity and less expansion. Don't worry about wasting energy on the countryside. This "waste of energy" is invalid because the bullet is designed to do certain things at certain velocities. If it will "deliver energy" at long range at low velocity it will destroy itself up close. This is of course the grandest claims for some of todays bullets and some do come close to this but still must work with in certain limits of the envelope of physics. For them to be able to do all of this magic, certain conditions must be met. If I don't hit any bones when he close...and IF he is broadside way out yonder....or something along those lines.

    The super bullets of today are sharp pointed and boattailed. They will fly with the greatest of ease and destroy everything in their path....yeah right. The Barnes X variety of bullets do some wonderful work, but it defies logic, however, to say they are the best for every application. A problem with them is that they are so long they must be reduced in weight to fit the "envelope" of the caliber case and the magazine of the rifle. The manufacturer counters that with the notion that they have, even at lighter weight, more momentum and sectional density (penetration) than conventional bullets of greater weight. Ahem!

    The facts are more obvious. If you use a 416 with a 400 grain bullet it doesn't much matter which bullet design you use. If you use a 30 caliber with a 180 grain bullet it better be a magical bullet for sure.

    Bigger game ..... bigger bullets...tougher game ...... tougher bullets. Big tough game, you got it ...big tough bullets.
    Last edited by Murphy; 06-20-2007 at 20:38.
    Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?



  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Murphy View Post

    The super bullets of today are sharp pointed and boattailed. They will fly with the greatest of ease and destroy everything in their path....yeah right. The Barnes X variety of bullets do some wonderful work. It defies logic, however, to say they are the best for every application. A problem with them is that they are so long they must be reduced in weight to fit the "envelope" of the caliber case and the magazine of the rifle. The manufactureer counters that with the notion that they have, even at lighter weight, more momentum and sectional density (penetration) than conventional bullets of greater weight. Ahem!

    The facts are more obvious. If you use a 416 with a 400 grain bullet it doesn't much matter which bullet design you use. If you use a 30 caliber with a 180 grain bullet it better be a magical bullet for sure.

    Bigger game ..... bigger bullets...tougher game ...... tougher bullets. Big tough game, you got it ...big tough bullets.
    Murphy you said so much it would take a book to refute so much smoke. My 300WBY OAL is 3.710 with the TSX 180gr average OAL for the other bullets mentioned is 3.560. I have plenty of mag space left and plenty of case space in my 300WBY to move my 180gr at an average of 3287fps and that translates into 4317 pounds of energy and still has 2081 pounds even out to 600yds. If an 06 with a 180gr can and has dropped big bears for many years with much lesser constructed bullets than the above mentioned and much less energy and much less momentum, so can as you call them the new supper bullets out of the 300mags. Up close my TSX will out preform the other bullets mentioned because it will hold together better and still open up and not come a part and will not shed weight like some of the above giving it more momentum and delivered energy. It is very clear from your invalid arguments that you hold a bias toward the new as you say supper bullets and it is apparent that you argue from that bias. You are just wrong, it is the TSX not the X bullet we are discussing in this thread. Bigger is better on bear but he said the 300 Win and you did not argue with in the confines of his proposition because it did not suit your bais.
    A GUN WRITER NEEDS:
    THE MIND OF A SCHOLAR
    THE HEART OF A CHILD
    THE HIDE OF A RHINOCEROS

  9. #9
    Member 8x57 Mauser's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Southeast Alaska
    Posts
    513

    Default I think he IS writing a book

    Quote Originally Posted by beartooth View Post
    Murphy you said so much it would take a book to refute so much smoke.
    Well, he sure said a lot.

    I'm pretty sure I missed most or all of the airplane references.

    But maybe go easy on the 'smoke' bit? I know we can keep our vociferous disagreements pleasant.

    Quote Originally Posted by beartooth View Post
    If an 06 with a 180gr can and has dropped big bears for many years with much lesser constructed bullets than the above mentioned and much less energy and much less momentum, so can as you call them the new supper (sic) bullets out of the 300mags.
    There's where you and I agree, beartooth. Used to have a very good family friend who did about all there is to be done in the woods in Alaska with an '06 and 180 grain bullets. That included several run-ins with big, furry, sharp-toothed critters - both planned and unplanned.

    He did not have the benefit of fancy-schmancy highfalutin newfangled bullets - although I don't doubt he'd have used them if he did.

    Quote Originally Posted by beartooth View Post
    It is very clear from your invalid arguments that you hold a bias toward the new as you say supper (sic) bullets and it is apparent that you argue from that bias. You are just wrong, it is the TSX not the X bullet we are discussing in this thread.
    I think you mean against the new bullets, but I don't know that's quite what I read in Murphy's post. I think I saw a pretty clear bias against advertising hype. I sure can't argue with him on that. There are some fairly unsupportable claims made from time to time by the manufacturers who moil for moolah.

    Now, I can argue that the 180gr. Kodiak and Trophy Bonded Bear Claw are adequate bullets to break bear bones and still penetrate. Even at horribly anemic velocities like the 2700 fps the '06 generates at the muzzle. Tough jackets at the base and good bonding of core to jacket makes the remarkably durable. I've seen photos of these bullets recovered from various media way up into whiz-bang whammo velocities, and they've held together better than 'traditional' old-school bullets. I also know they open up pretty well at more moderate velocities. And, while Murphy is right that no bullet can do it all, getting the optimum spread for your caliber and application is the big goal here.

    I'm also a fan of the FailSafe, but rumor has it they're going the way of the dodo.

    Quote Originally Posted by beartooth View Post
    Bigger is better on bear but he said the 300 Win
    That he did. So, given the stipulation of caliber in advance, I would recommend adding the Kodiak and the TBBC to the list. But I'd recommend doing so at 200 grains, rather than 180. The 300 Win. has the capacity to launch those every bit as fast as the '06 can launch 180 grains, and if you're restricting your shots to under 250 yards, you don't need 'reach way out' velocities.

    I will agree with Murphy that 50 yards doesn't make much sense as a minimum. Point-blank is what you're worried about if you get charged or have to follow one into the alders. So rather than pick a different bullet for protection as cajun53 asked, I'd recommend a big enough, well-enough built bullet to do both.

  10. #10

    Smile Bullets

    I love bullet talk. Rifles, scopes, powders, cases, primers, etc., and all the other stuff is great to learn about and debate. The bullet is the only thing that does the killing. I have had very good results with the original 250 gr. X bullet at a little under 2700 FPS MV in the .338 Win. Mag. Almost all my game has been taken under 150 yds. Same goes for the 180 gr. X at about 2800 FPS MV out of the 30-06. I used a .300 Win. Mag. for a couple of years a long time ago and felt the 200 gr. Nosler Partition was about as good as it gets. That being said and all things being considered, if I shot a .300 Win. Mag. today, I would probably get some 200 gr. Swift A-Frames and hope my gun would shoot good hunting groups with them. Unless someone goes to Australia or Africa and gets in on a culling operation where hundreds of animals are shot and autopsies a few hundred large critters we can only go by our very limited experience and hear what others have experienced. The weird thing is I could give someone my loads to shoot in their 30-06 or .338 and they may very well have different results even with good shot placement. Go figure. As the man said. Big tough game deserves a Big Tough Bullet at a moderate "impact" velocity for consistent deadly results. We should debate bullets every night!

  11. #11
    Member stevelyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Fairbanksan in Aleutian Hell
    Posts
    1,316

    Default

    I'm a Nosler fan. I like the way the Partition sheds the front half after expanding mitigating the "parachute effect" and plows on through the other side.
    Now what ?

  12. #12

    Default

    I am not going to even attempt to get in this debate between Murph and beartooth. But FWIW the only thing that I'll throw in here is that there are multi-purpose loads for guns and their are critter specific loads for guns. I flew down in the neighborhood of the Katmai on the Alaska Pen last spring for Brown Bear, I wasn't using multipurpose anything cuz we were only after one critter, the Brown Bear and where they grow biggest. I had custom handloaded 200 grain A-Frames for my 300 WM. I did not get a chance to shoot a bear but if I were going back down there and was taking a 300WM specifically for Brown Bear again it would have those same 200 grain A-Frames in the belly. The A-Frames have proven themselves on the Dark Continent on animals far bigger and equally aggressive to those in Alaska for a long time. To me it's at the top of the list for a proven DG bullet. I'd roll the 180 for multi-purpose big game hunting but for the biggins I'd go heavy for caliber but still moving with a purpose speeds.

  13. #13
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Cub,
    I'm not as verbose as Murphy, but have a look at North Fork bullets. Great bullets.

  14. #14

    Default

    DPhillips

    I have heard very good things about North Forks from some very credible sources, just never tried em. Its pretty hard these days to simply figure out what projectile your gonna kill stuff with as if there isn't a hundred other things to think about and plan for on hunts. I can tell you that I woulda traded those 200 grain A-Frames for some Core-Loks on the Pen last spring if it would have increased my odds of seeing a good bear! <grin>

  15. #15
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beartooth View Post
    Murphy you said so much it would take a book to refute so much smoke. My 300WBY OAL is 3.710 with the TSX 180gr average OAL for the other bullets mentioned is 3.560. I have plenty of mag space left and plenty of case space in my 300WBY to move my 180gr at an average of 3287fps and that translates into 4317 pounds of energy and still has 2081 pounds even out to 600yds. If an 06 with a 180gr can and has dropped big bears for many years with much lesser constructed bullets than the above mentioned and much less energy and much less momentum, so can as you call them the new supper bullets out of the 300mags. Up close my TSX will out preform the other bullets mentioned because it will hold together better and still open up and not come a part and will not shed weight like some of the above giving it more momentum and delivered energy. It is very clear from your invalid arguments that you hold a bias toward the new as you say supper bullets and it is apparent that you argue from that bias. You are just wrong, it is the TSX not the X bullet we are discussing in this thread. Bigger is better on bear but he said the 300 Win and you did not argue with in the confines of his proposition because it did not suit your bais.
    What specifically was I wrong about? Your 300 Weatherby has enough room in the case and the magazine to get a 180 grain TSX to it's original advertised velocity for that bullet weight. OK, I was wrong about that. For MOST normal length 30 calibers that may not be true. No. I am biased against the TSX that that is advertised to defy the laws of physics. Will your TSX of 180 grains beat up my A-frame of 200 grains? There is little doubt that the TSX is strongly made and certainly it is at it's best in calibers such as your Weatherby that can deliver the highest velocity. And I agree with you, it's performance up close may be the best available for SOME caliber, namely your 300 Wby. But if you think at impact velocities of 3200 fps that the magical TSX won't shed any weight when fired into large bear shoulder bones, I would think you haven't shot anything with it at that velocity. As for the Barnes X bullet or the TSX they have the same construction at the nose with the folded petals so their terminal impact performance should well be the same so when we speak of them in regard to terminal ballistics, they are the same. The TSX is vastly improved from an internal ballistic stand point and has much less friction down the bore and can be driven to velocities more commonly associated with lead core bullets.

    Now for the comparison of the '06 and your super magnum, given the choice between the two, I'll always take the '06 for big bears. At '06 velocities it will not destroy bullets up close like the weatherby can and has. I know there are many bullets that will withstands it's modest velocity. This large dose of energy that you give your 300 Wby is the reason it achieved the reputation in Africa as a 300 Woundaby. Higher energy is not a benefit sometimes. Do you you mean to say your would hunt African lions at ground level with that caliber/bullet combo? It is no secret that I don't consider 30 caliber guns, regardless of their energy level, to be bear guns.

    All of this is just my opinion. Opinions do not have to be right or wrong, they are just opinions. They are based on experience of 40 years or 15 minutes. They are based on sound principles of physics or less astute theories, but they are never-the-less opinions.

    The laws of physics are more sound and can be referenced but opinion as to the meaning or interpretation may come into play. Once on this site a guy boldly stated that gravity had nothing to do with bullet drop. Another opinion I presume.

    One of the duties I have on this site is to stimulate interest and interaction from members, I'll work on that. I do enjoy your post and desenting views and I think others do also. It is also no secret that I've been wrong before.
    Is there nothing so sacred on this earth that you aren't willing to kill or die for?



  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cajun53 View Post
    I would like this to be a disscusion about bullet construction not caliber to use. For bear (GRIZ) not black which bullet would be best to use for both hunting 50 yards to 250 yard. And what bullet for protection lets say inside 50 yards. The NP, TBBC,A-Frame, or TSX. Let use the 300 WM as the caliber. Please tell me why for your choice such as penetration expansion etc. and feel free to add a bullet if you can think of another that may be better for the job at hand. Sorry to be so long winded but wanted to be understood.
    Thanks;
    Given the parameters in a 300 win mag. I would say without a doubt a 200g (nice S.D.!) Noslar Partition would be your best choice. It creates a great wound channel, and still penetrates for a good long ways. Not that I recommend bad shot angels, but you could have a bad one and the Noslar Partition would still get the job done.

    I say no way on the Barns X as usual. See the multiple other threads discussing it, they act like solids and don’t kill as effectively as an A-Frame or TBBC on not even close to a Noslar Partition.

  17. #17

    Default 338 WM and Barnes TSX = not so good!

    I put my 2 cents in on this thread about the TSX bullet and my magic bear killing rifle in 30-06.

    http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/...ad.php?t=14311

  18. #18

    Default

    All well said, have not used the TSX on Lion, I use a 220 A-Frame. I got a little carried away but still think the TSX is better in velocity than the original X as stated and will kill quick. I also said that the TBBC, A-Frame and Par. are great bullets. Also, I guess I was looking to answer his question at the beginning of the thread to provide him with one that would work for him in all his situations as he stated them and put them in the order that I though would fulfill his need considering cal. and velocity. I would still choose them in this order. TSX, TBBC, A-Frame and Patition. Murphy, no dissrespect intended, I like to talk about bullet also.
    A GUN WRITER NEEDS:
    THE MIND OF A SCHOLAR
    THE HEART OF A CHILD
    THE HIDE OF A RHINOCEROS

  19. #19

    Default

    As Murphy said, this is a little hard to respond to because of the parameters of the question. At 50 to 250 yards and using 300 Win Mag I don't know if a grizzly would know or care about the difference in any of the bullets you mentioned if they were 180 gr or up. Personally if I was to choose a Barnes bullet I would opt for the MRX because I think (have no experience, actual or vicarious, to back this up) it might expand a little more reliably at longer ranges, and the shorter bullet length would allow for more powder and higher velocities. I'm not sure we don't put too much emphasis on the mythical "magic bullet" and not enough on hunting and shooting skills. A while back, Craig Boddington wrote a column about expanding bullets and opened the piece quoting Karamoja Bell as being proud of never polluting his 275 Rigby with expanding bullets. Solids can be used to make two sucking holes that collapse lungs, will penetrate skulls, or break bones that disable critters. Of course, in a 30 caliber the holes wouldn't be particularly big and you might not get the bone breaking performance you would want on really big tough critters when they are up close and personal.

    In open areas where you can see the animal run and drop, or follow a big blood trail 30 caliber solids would be OK for medium game and that's why I don't have a problem with the TSX in medium calibers on medium game despite the mixed reviews on expansion. If it doesn't expand on non dangerous game, then you are just shooting solids and with any hit in the vitals it is no big deal for you but not as quick a death for the animal. But I think you have to be prepared to hunt as if you are using solids. In theory, they do provide you the option of the high shoulder shot to anchor an animal and not lose a whole front quarter of meat.

    Now, if I have correctly interpreted all the bullet discussions on this and other forums, and all the things I've read over the years, what we really need to do is shoot large caliber hard cast bullets having large meplats that weigh 400 grains or more, and leave the barrel at velocities of 1100 to 1900 fps. We need to practice, practice, practice to learn trajectory and then hunt within the range we can consistently hit an 8" target. If we did this we could humanely kill any North American game animal and eat right up to the hole. But, that's like the Walgreens perfect world commercials. So, we use bullets that weigh less, shoot faster and flatter, have less recoil, can be shot in lighter rifles, and when they pass through the hide and muscle expand and act like a large caliber wide meplat bullet when they get to the heart, lung area. At ranges where there is enough remaining velocity and energy to expand them (without tearing them completely apart), they work spectacularly, especially when a fragment of bullet severs the spinal cord. But, being made of soft lead with a relatively brittle jacket they don't work as well when they hit bone unless there is some way to reliably lock the jacket and core together or preserve enough bullet weight to reliably penetrate with a remaining core that acts as a solid.

    The X and TSX seem to operate on a different principle. My personal interpretation of how a TSX works (when it is expands) is to compare it to a VitaMix blender; it cuts and blends with high speed blades instead of creating a large meplat that may or may not be fragmenting. If you have a high speed blender, fill it with cooked whole tomatoes (simulated lung tissue), pulse it and watch what happens. It looks just like the high speed videos of the TSX passing through ballistic gelatin. If the petals break off it just becomes a heavier Partition.

    Murphy continues to make some great points about how different bullets have different envelopes of performance and uses. If I could be assured of shots no closer than 50 yards, I would choose the 200 gr. A Frame for work out to 250 yards when using a 300 Win Mag. But, like Murphy says, if things can go wrong they will, and there is no guarantee that you won't come across Mr. Grizz at shorter range so, I too would prefer the TBBC. I would choose the 200 gr. I think it would have a little less expansion than the A Frame and therefore a little more penetration. The MRX would be my third choice for any range work, but I would feel completely confident in using 220 gr Partitions, 200-220 gr Woodleighs, 180-200gr TSX, 180-200gr Northforks, or 180 and up Kodiaks for ranges over 50 yards or emergencies under 50 yards. We have so many good choices today that it's easy to develop paralysis through analysis. Since we are limited to 300 Win Mag in this discussion it is my opinion that tough bullets that are heavy for caliber get the nod.

    Beartooth, if I had a 300 Weatherby or 300 Ultra Mag, and if I could afford them, I would prefer the MRX just because I think the Delrin tip would make it more likely to expand better at any range that my limited skills would let me shoot. The TSX would be my second choice because I'm sure they would penetrate adequately at any range. What I've been able to surmise, and this is just my opinion from lots of posts I've read, is that guys have come to expect a certain look to the wounds caused by expanding bullets. When the appearance doesn't meet their expectations the bullet is considered a failure even though the animal died. If someone shoots a Sierra bullet at a deer and the bullet just happens to pass through leaving a 3" hole, and the animal drops as if it were touched by the hand of God because a bullet fragment took out the spinal cord, it is a great bullet. If the same thing happens and the bullet is found in two pieces in the body cavity or the offside hide the bullet failed. A fully expanded X bullet of any variety that is a complete shoot through should have a near caliber exit hole because a fully expanded Barnes has the petals wrapped back and is not still shedding weight when it gets to the other side. The wrapped back petals don't have the frontal diameter of a bonded bullet like a Woodleigh. A Partition that has fragmented in the body cavity and completely shed its nose should also have a smaller exit hole. But, the Partition will leave behind greater evidence of widespread destruction than the Barnes bullets because of the fragmentation. At lower velocities where nose stays together the damage should look more like what we are used to with conventional high weight retention bullets. To me it is more of matter of bullets performing to expectations and preconceived notions of acceptable bullet performance than what may actually be taking place. As I stated above, my belief is that the X series bullets when expanding and expanded, act like a high speed blender, so the wound channel that hunters expect to see is different and therefore "the bullet has failed." There's a lot to be said for the question, "Did the animal die?" when discussing bullet performance and failure.

  20. #20

    Default One more try

    I would like to thank every one for their replys. I did not mean to start a rucus but mearly to grasp a little better knowledge. Mr. Murphy I have always enjoyed your post and have learned a great deal. So I am sorry if my question upset you. I am not a pilot and have no desire to fight a moose or Mr. Tyson. And I am sorry but because of my great lack of education I am sorry but didn,t get much out of your post. I am sorry for the way I formed my question I guess the numbers were confusing. To take my question to the lowest common denominator all I wanted to know is every ones opinion on which bullet perform better a higher velocities and which performed better a lower velocities. I am aware that there is not one do all bullet. However I do not think it would be a good idea to carry 3 or 4 different loads having one expecting to shoot a bear unaware at normal hunting distances and if a bear charges out of the brush quickly empty my gun and change to another load. All I wanted was an opinion on these two points and form my own opinion. I would like to appolagise again for the length of my response. The begining post was my fist on this site although I have been following it for some time. This could possibly be my last but I assure you I will contiue to follow this site as I have learned a great deal from it. Thanks again for listining and commenting.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •