Are we too critical of modern bullets?

[MontanaRifleman]

I think the bottom line is that objective criticism can be a good thing to learn from. But "bashing" is usually counterproductive, but even that can generate some good discussion.

Most of us know what we want in a bullet and what certain brands and types of bullets offer and are not going to be overly influenced by one thread.

I think folks should be careful about using "F" word (fail,failure) as it tends to generate a lot of heat and it is not always accurate.

 

[Lefty7mmstw]

I think folks should be careful about using "F" word (fail,failure) as it tends to generate a lot of heat and it is not always accurate.

yep....

I always get a chuckle from that one as it is virtually always referring to a bullet dug out of a dead criter.

 

[Broz]

yep....

I always get a chuckle from that one as it is virtually always referring to a bullet dug out of a dead criter.

Exactly.



.

 

[MudRunner2005]

This is something we see a lot of, and i think is unfortunate, but luckily we have some very talented marksmen here that do a fine job of setting things right.

Agreed! I've been shooting and hunting my entire life, and the info I've learned from being here from all the pros has been invaluable to my shooting, critiqueing, and learning how to do things the RIGHT way. They're good folks here. Nobody is gonna steer you in the wrong direction. I trust these guys.

 

[mrb1982]

yep....

I always get a chuckle from that one as it is virtually always referring to a bullet dug out of a dead criter.

Lol Couldn't be any more true than that!

Agreed! I've been shooting and hunting my entire life, and the info I've learned from being here from all the pros has been invaluable to my shooting, critiqueing, and learning how to do things the RIGHT way. They're good folks here. Nobody is gonna steer you in the wrong direction. I trust these guys.

Agreed!

 

[Kennibear]

+1 on Lefty's dead critter comment. A recovered game animal is a success by any standard. The ones that get away are the failures. And short of another hunter dropping that very animal we cannot determine the source of failure.

MudRunner is right about the members of this website as I feel it is the finest collection of like minded people I have found. Of the areas in this sport I am well versed I have found quality expertise expressed and that is not the norm. Kudos to Len for such a blessing!

We can expect to see better bullets developed but state of the art is amazing to an old shooter like me. I have watched bullets improve past the levels I thought possible. So in the final analysis by me, the terms bandied about as "bullet failures" can in most cases be traced to other sources (i.e. poor placement, over expectation of performance, etc.). But pertaining to info shared on this site it is hard to expect a bullet to hold together at the ultra velocities we start them at and still open readily at the greatly reduced velocity of a long range hit. I personally am content to have an accurate bullet for long range hits and have it perform as expected when it arrives.

I am of the belief, after a friend's 300 RUM vaporized its bullets at less than 70 yds on an elk, that for me the solution (or avoidance) to failure is two loads. First is the long range thumper that is the primary load. The second is a stout, well constructed but not necessarily sleek bullet for up close opportunities. The second load would have to shoot to the POA, within reason, of the primary load out to the distance where the primary bullet enters its velocity window. I believe, from postings on this site, that distance is around 300 yards.It may be a fool's errand but I have had rifles that shot different bullets to the same POA. That's the goal anyway.

When I started reloading in 1971 most of these "bullet failures" would have been pretty good results!

KB

 

[Michael Courtney]

So i ask you for your humble opinion, are we too critical of modern bullets?

The best definition of a bad product (including bullets) is one that does not meet its advertising claims or product specifications. If you spend $20k on a hybrid car that claims 45 mpg and only get 35 mpg, you wasted your money on a bad product.

Many bullets do not love up to their advertised ballistic coefficients.

Many bullets do not offer reliable terminal performance over the entire advertised effective velocity range. Some fail to expand all the way down to their advertised lower velocity limit. Others fail to penetrate adequately all the way to their advertised higher velocity limit.

I have no criticism for bullets that meet their marketing claims.

 

[Lefty7mmstw]

The best definition of a bad product (including bullets) is one that does not meet its advertising claims or product specifications. If you spend $20k on a hybrid car that claims 45 mpg and only get 35 mpg, you wasted your money on a bad product.

Many bullets do not love up to their advertised ballistic coefficients.

Many bullets do not offer reliable terminal performance over the entire advertised effective velocity range. Some fail to expand all the way down to their advertised lower velocity limit. Others fail to penetrate adequately all the way to their advertised higher velocity limit.

I have no criticism for bullets that meet their marketing claims.

The biggest problem with marketing claims is that they are generalized for all the bullets in a certain flavor. I don't expect a 22-24cal bullet to act the same way as a 7mm or 338 in the same lineup.
Minimum impact vel. is always going to be a theoretical; it depends largely on what you hit on the critter... a shoulder or other bone hit will open a bullet that a rib hit may not.
I do wish they would stop using theoretical bc #'s and shoot the bullets to obtain bc; it would surely separate the wheat from the chaff a bit better.

 

[Bullet bumper]

No we are not. You answered your own question I think when you said it is what made the industry what it is today .
Without intelligent criticism nothing much changes.
Who affects change more , the people that just go along with the status quo or the people who jump up and down and complain to get something else .
On a seperate note but the same theme this is the great lesson all us Christians need to learn , turning the other cheek has failed miserably .

 

[WildRose]

No we are not. You answered your own question I think when you said it is what made the industry what it is today .
Without intelligent criticism nothing much changes.
Who affects change more , the people that just go along with the status quo or the people who jump up and down and complain to get something else .
On a seperate note but the same theme this is the great lesson all us Christians need to learn , turning the other cheek has failed miserably .

Actually what changes things the most is what sells the most and what percentage market share a given mfg or product line is holding.

As long as we keep buying a given bullet in a volume which makes it profitable for the mgf, they will keep making them. When we cease to, that is when it sends a message to them.

Other than that and direct consumer feed back to the mfg's customer service people we as individuals have very little effect on what they produce.

As for BC's, BC's are not static. They vary with velocity so even when the mfg's do test them you are never going to get a BC that is completely accurate at all ranges unless you are shooting the same load, same velocity, same conditions as was done during testing.

 

[Michael Courtney]

Minimum impact vel. is always going to be a theoretical; it depends largely on what you hit on the critter... a shoulder or other bone hit will open a bullet that a rib hit may not.

Right, but hitting soft tissue will give the most conservative estimate of reliable minimum velocity required for expansion. This is easily simulated with ballistic gelatin. Handgun bullet makers would not dream of claiming expansion for loads which did not even expand in ballistic gelatin, but the makers of hunting bullets do it all the time.

It would be a simple matter to test every design in ballistic gelatin and publish the lowest velocity to reliably achieve 50% expansion over the original diameter. But this would tend to produce higher minimum expansion velocities than have been published for many bullets.

 

[WildRose]

Right, but hitting soft tissue will give the most conservative estimate of reliable minimum velocity required for expansion. This is easily simulated with ballistic gelatin. Handgun bullet makers would not dream of claiming expansion for loads which did not even expand in ballistic gelatin, but the makers of hunting bullets do it all the time.

It would be a simple matter to test every design in ballistic gelatin and publish the lowest velocity to reliably achieve 50% expansion over the original diameter. But this would tend to produce higher minimum expansion velocities than have been published for many bullets.

There seems to be a great deal of assumption in here. What companies do not test their bullets in ballistic gel or on carcasses? What is the source of this information?

 

[Michael Courtney]

There seems to be a great deal of assumption in here. What companies do not test their bullets in ballistic gel or on carcasses? What is the source of this information?

The assumptions are yours.

Colleagues and I have tested many bullet designs in game and in calibrated ballistic gelatin. Many designs do not expand anywhere near their advertised lower limits.

We've also conducted many independent tests of ballistic coefficients reviewed many other independent tests of bullet BCs. Many bullets have measured BCs significantly below their advertised specifications.

 

[WildRose]

The assumptions are yours.

Colleagues and I have tested many bullet designs in game and in calibrated ballistic gelatin. Many designs do not expand anywhere near their advertised lower limits.

We've also conducted many independent tests of ballistic coefficients reviewed many other independent tests of bullet BCs. Many bullets have measured BCs significantly below their advertised specifications.

Perhaps I was unclear.

What mfg's are not testing their bullets on either carcases or ballistic gel? Where does this information come from?

As for your tests, your results are what they are but all results will vary based on the conditions of the test. If you are not testing under the same conditions as the mfg therefore your results are going to be different.

I too think a lot of listed bc's are at best theoretical vs proven but then again BC's are not static. They will vary with velocity, range, and conditions.