Are we too critical of modern bullets?

[MontanaRifleman]

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.

Hard to argue with that.

 

[Michael Courtney]

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.

Our basic premise is that manufacturers have a duty to ensure that bullets meet their marketing claims.

So the question is not whether some testing occurs, but whether sufficient testing occurs to ensure that bullets meet their marketing claims. Certainly, more can be said about expansion thresholds and ballistic coefficients, but it may be more instructive to take a simpler case first, since the measurements are much less nuanced for the issue of bullet weight.

At their web site (See: Why Berger's Are Better | Berger Bullets ) Berger bullets claims a manufacturing tolerance of +/- 0.05 grains for bullets weighing between 20 and 60 grains. It is a simple matter to weigh a box of bullets on a precision scale and compare with the published tolerances. We did that and published our results in a technial report for the Department of Defense. (See: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a555976.pdf )

The results for the 52 grain Berger Flat Base Varmint bullet in .224 is shown. It is obvious that over 80% of these bullets were outside of Berger's advertised manufacturing specification.

Is it asking too much for bullets to meet their advertised specifications?

 

[WildRose]

Our basic premise is that manufacturers have a duty to ensure that bullets meet their marketing claims.

So the question is not whether some testing occurs, but whether sufficient testing occurs to ensure that bullets meet their marketing claims. Certainly, more can be said about expansion thresholds and ballistic coefficients, but it may be more instructive to take a simpler case first, since the measurements are much less nuanced for the issue of bullet weight.

At their web site (See: Why Berger's Are Better | Berger Bullets ) Berger bullets claims a manufacturing tolerance of +/- 0.05 grains for bullets weighing between 20 and 60 grains. It is a simple matter to weigh a box of bullets on a precision scale and compare with the published tolerances. We did that and published our results in a technial report for the Department of Defense. (See: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a555976.pdf )

The results for the 52 grain Berger Flat Base Varmint bullet in .224 is shown. It is obvious that over 80% of these bullets were outside of Berger's advertised manufacturing specification.

Is it asking too much for bullets to meet their advertised specifications?

That's not what I asked you about but you certainly have a point on weight tolerance with these bullets.

You claimed manufacturers are not testing their bullets in ballistic gel or carcasses.

I ask again, which manufacturers are not and from where does this information come?

 

[Michael Courtney]

That's not what I asked you about but you certainly have a point on weight tolerance with these bullets.

You claimed manufacturers are not testing their bullets in ballistic gel or carcasses.

I ask again, which manufacturers are not and from where does this information come?

I did not say the manufacturers are not testing, but rather that they are making claims that are not supported by testing. Consider this claim by Barnes about the TSX:

Because our TSX Bullets are solid copper and have a specially engineered nose cavity, it is nearly impossible for them not to expand.

It is actually quite easy for Barnes bullets not to expand. If the impact velocity is below the required threshold, the bullets will not expand. As a bullet slows in flight, there is a maximum range (depending on BC and conditions) where the bullet will not expand. Barnes gelatin testing at impact velocities close to 2000 ft/s does not support the claim that "it is nearly impossible for them not to expand."

Almost all Barnes TSX, TTSX, and LRX bullets will fail to expand as the impact velocity is lowered from 2000 ft/s to 1100 ft/s. This limits their usefulness and applications in long range hunting, even though Barnes claims for their LRX bullet "terminal performance is unmatched on game at not only close, but extreme distances for long range hunters."

Do you think that testing expansion at 2000 ft/s is adequate to ensure reliable expansion at the extreme distances that the long range hunters on this forum regularly take game?

Given Nosler's propensity for publishing inflated BC numbers, I also tend to doubt that they have tested all their long range accubond models to ensure reliable expansion down to their marketing claim of 1300 ft/s.

 

[WildRose]

I did not say the manufacturers are not testing, but rather that they are making claims that are not supported by testing. Consider this claim by Barnes about the TSX:

Actually you did which is why I specifically asked you about it.

Originally Posted by Michael Courtney
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.

Because our TSX Bullets are solid copper and have a specially engineered nose cavity, it is nearly impossible for them not to expand.

It is actually quite easy for Barnes bullets not to expand. If the impact velocity is below the required threshold, the bullets will not expand. As a bullet slows in flight, there is a maximum range (depending on BC and conditions) where the bullet will not expand. Barnes gelatin testing at impact velocities close to 2000 ft/s does not support the claim that "it is nearly impossible for them not to expand."

Almost all Barnes TSX, TTSX, and LRX bullets will fail to expand as the impact velocity is lowered from 2000 ft/s to 1100 ft/s. This limits their usefulness and applications in long range hunting, even though Barnes claims for their LRX bullet "terminal performance is unmatched on game at not only close, but extreme distances for long range hunters."

I think you're picking nits here since we all know that when bullets fall below their recommended velocities expansion problems occur. I don't shoot the Barnes bullets any more so I don't keep up with what they are publishing.

Do you think that testing expansion at 2000 ft/s is adequate to ensure reliable expansion at the extreme distances that the long range hunters on this forum regularly take game?

No, but then long range hunters are a tiny fraction of the market. If they are making claims that the bullets will expand below 2000fps they should have testing data to show it.

Given Nosler's propensity for publishing inflated BC numbers, I also tend to doubt that they have tested all their long range accubond models to ensure reliable expansion down to their marketing claim of 1300 ft/s.

An assumption. I have yet to have Accubonds fail to expand at any range I've shot game using them but admittedly I've not tested them at range with ballistic gel. I measure a bullets effectiveness by how it performs on game.

BTW Nosler shows minimum velocity for expansion of the AB's at 1800FPS, not 1300

http://www.nosler.com/accubond

They show 1300fps for the AB LR's.

http://www.nosler.com/accubond-long-range

Have you asked them to provide data to show they in fact will open up at 1,300fps?

 

[Pdvdh]

I think you're picking nits here since we all know that when bullets fall below their recommended velocities expansion problems occur.

An assumption. I have yet to have Accubonds fail to expand at any range I've shot game using them but admittedly I've not tested them at range with ballistic gel. I measure a bullets effectiveness by how it performs on game.

They show 1300fps for the AB LR's.

AccuBond Long Range

Have you asked them to provide data to show they in fact will open up at 1,300fps?

WR,
I think you're the one "picking nits" now. I read MC's posts as well as your quote of his post and I don't interpret MC to have stated bullet manufacturer's don't test their bullets.

You go on to question whether he's asked Nosler to provide data to support their advertising claims. If you want to refute his statements, it seems like you should contact Nosler.

This thread is a classic example of how people can argue about anything if they feel strongly enough about the products they purchase and use.

I agree that bullet manufacturers have commonly misrepresented their products over the years in their advertising in the effort to increase sales. They pretty much had to in order to remain competitive with the superlatives the rest of the manufacturers were using to advertise their products. They could, and would, claim anything they wanted to in days gone by, before the internet allowed end product users to express their experiences and criticism. What allows a company to publish false and misleading information without any repercussions is the lack of accountability. If a company designs and builds a bridge to meet standard traffic loads and use, and the bridge collapses under normal loads and use, the company is held accountable. When bullet manufacturers design, build, and market bullets, they claim many things, and historically they've laid it on pretty heavy in order to maximize bullet sales and profits. There's little accountability. So much so that over the years, many hunters haven't expected anything better than misrepresentation - certainly with respect to advertised BCs. Why people throw fits and temper tantrums on this Forum when a member using a bullet expresses his experience and disappointed opinion about bullet performance is beyond me. If a member shoots an animal and claims bullet failure, there's commonly been an outcry the equivalent of blasphemy. Those are the threads I want to read. I can judge for myself, based on the evidence provided, how much credibility to give to the member's experience, Post, and opinion. Attacks against the authors of those Posts and Threads don't serve me in any way. And in my opinion they largely serve only the loyalties and egos of the attackers.

I equate the critical review of bullets on public forums to be the equivalent of accountability. Bullet manufacturers should expect it, rather than being surprised or dismayed by it. Only after they become conditioned to expect these bullet use "show and tell" experiences and the accountability that they foster, will there be sufficient motivation to provide more accurate descriptive advertising for the product they manufacture and sell.

Michael Courtney's completed and participated in a lot of bullet testing in the past several years. His testing is more scientific than "I have yet to have Accubonds fail to expand at any range I've shot game using them but admittedly I've not tested them at range with ballistic gel. I measure a bullets effectiveness by how it performs on game." Well that's great to the extent that it works for you. And you shouldn't be attacked for having made that statement. I take it for what its worth.

However what about others that don't shoot and/or hunt as much as you in order to have personally learned what you've learned thru repetitive field use? They may appreciate the Michael Courtney testing and reporting. Scientific testing and reporting is time consuming. It yields data of high confidence. Others can repeat the tests and expect the same test results. The ultimate value is that it creates accountability. I've read some of his reports and I appreciate the accountability they help bring to manufacturers of the products I purchase.

 

[WildRose]

WR,
I think you're the one "picking nits" now. I read MC's posts as well as your quote of his post and I don't interpret MC to have stated bullet manufacturer's don't test their bullets.

You go on to question whether he's asked Nosler to provide data to support their advertising claims. If you want to refute his statements, it seems like you should contact Nosler.

This thread is a classic example of how people can argue about anything if they feel strongly enough about the products they purchase and use.

I agree that bullet manufacturers have commonly misrepresented their products over the years in their advertising in the effort to increase sales. They pretty much had to in order to remain competitive with the superlatives the rest of the manufacturers were using to advertise their products. They could, and would, claim anything they wanted to in days gone by, before the internet allowed end product users to express their experiences and criticism. What allows a company to publish false and misleading information without any repercussions is the lack of accountability. If a company designs and builds a bridge to meet standard traffic loads and use, and the bridge collapses under normal loads and use, the company is held accountable. When bullet manufacturers design, build, and market bullets, they claim many things, and historically they've laid it on pretty heavy in order to maximize bullet sales and profits. There's little accountability. So much so that over the years, many hunters haven't expected anything better than misrepresentation - certainly with respect to advertised BCs. Why people throw fits and temper tantrums on this Forum when a member using a bullet expresses his experience and disappointed opinion about bullet performance is beyond me. If a member shoots an animal and claims bullet failure, there's commonly been an outcry the equivalent of blasphemy. Those are the threads I want to read. I can judge for myself, based on the evidence provided, how much credibility to give to the member's experience, Post, and opinion. Attacks against the authors of those Posts and Threads don't serve me in any way. And in my opinion they largely serve only the loyalties and egos of the attackers.

I equate the critical review of bullets on public forums to be the equivalent of accountability. Bullet manufacturers should expect it, rather than being surprised or dismayed by it. Only after they become conditioned to expect these bullet use "show and tell" experiences and the accountability that they foster, will there be sufficient motivation to provide more accurate descriptive advertising for the product they manufacture and sell.

Michael Courtney's completed and participated in a lot of bullet testing in the past several years. His testing is more scientific than "I have yet to have Accubonds fail to expand at any range I've shot game using them but admittedly I've not tested them at range with ballistic gel. I measure a bullets effectiveness by how it performs on game." Well that's great to the extent that it works for you. And you shouldn't be attacked for having made that statement. I take it for what its worth.

However what about others that don't shoot and/or hunt as much as you in order to have personally learned what you've learned thru repetitive field use? They may appreciate the Michael Courtney testing and reporting. Scientific testing and reporting is time consuming. It yields data of high confidence. Others can repeat the tests and expect the same test results. The ultimate value is that it creates accountability. I've read some of his reports and I appreciate the accountability they help bring to manufacturers of the products I purchase.

I'm pretty adept at the use of the language. He's either claiming they are not testing them, or they are making false claims as to whether or not they are testing them in media.

As for the rest. When someone makes a categorical statemet of fact it's up to them to support such a statement.

I merely asked for him to do so, I didn't argue he was wrong, I simply asked for some supporting evidence of the claims. I think he's a good guy and has provided a lot of good information here as well but I am well within my rights to try and clarify which are facts and which are assumptions and opinions. There is no insult in attempting to do so.

 

[Pdvdh]

I'm pretty adept at the use of the language. He's either claiming they are not testing them, or they are making false claims as to whether or not they are testing them in media.

As for the rest. When someone makes a categorical statement of fact it's up to them to support such a statement.

I merely asked for him to do so, I didn't argue he was wrong, I simply asked for some supporting evidence of the claims. I think he's a good guy and has provided a lot of good information here as well but I am well within my rights to try and clarify which are facts and which are assumptions and opinions. There is no insult in attempting to do so.

WR,
Never said you weren't adept at the use of the language. I said I thought you were the one "picking nits", to use your own language.

But since you're sticking to your guns now for the 5th time (4 times with MC and the 5th time with me), would you clearly identify where MC wrote the equivalent of "bullet manufacturers don't test their bullets"? In ballistic gel, in animal carcasses, or in any other respect? MC responded to you directly after you leveled three allegations that he'd made such a statement. MC explained to you that he had not stated any such thing. You ignored his explanation of his own written text, and then continued to "pick nits" two more times. You're asking him to justify a statement that he never made, after he told you that he never made it. That's the definition of "picking nits".

Here we go, blow by blow. Please point out exactly were MC's text constitutes "bullet manufacturers don't test their products".


MC's initial Post that appears to have prompted your allegation:

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.

WR's 1st response - your initial allegation that MC stated "companies do not test their bullets in ballistic gel or on carcasses":

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?

MC's responds that you assumed incorrectly:

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.

WR's 2nd request that MC explain himself regarding a statement that he in fact never made:

Perhaps I was unclear.

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

WR's third challenge, after failing to elicit a response from MC with your 2nd request:

That's not what I asked you about but you certainly have a point on weight tolerance with these bullets.

You claimed manufacturers are not testing their bullets in ballistic gel or carcasses.

I ask again, which manufacturers are not and from where does this information come?

MC finally responds to your allegation (false to my mastery of the language) that he's "claimed manufacturers are not testing their bullets in ballistic gel or carcasses.":

I did not say the manufacturers are not testing, but rather that they are making claims that are not supported by testing.

WR confronts MC for the 4th time, after MC has responded as clearly as the language can communicate that he "did not say the manufacturers are not testing":

Actually you did which is why I specifically asked you about it.

WR, to my understanding of the language, you provide this quote from MC to demonstrate your contention that MC stated something that he already told you he didn't say:

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.

So, if you'd indulge me - identify the MC text that communicated what you claimed he said - 5 times. Specifically, that "manufacturers are not testing their bullets in ballistic gel or carcasses."

And if you can't do that, could you answer the question - What is it you're trying to accomplish?" Are you trying to harass MC to the point of silencing his participation on the Forum?

 

[WildRose]

WR,
Never said you weren't adept at the use of the language. I said I thought you were the one "picking nits", to use your own language.

But since you're sticking to your guns now for the 5th time (4 times with MC and the 5th time with me), would you clearly identify where MC wrote the equivalent of "bullet manufacturers don't test their bullets"?. In ballistic gel, in animal carcasses, or in any other respect? MC responded to you directly after you leveled three allegations that he'd made such a statement. MC explained to you that he had not stated any such thing. You ignored his explanation of his own written text, and then continued to "pick nits" two more times. You're asking him to justify a statement that he never made, after he told you that he never made it. That's the definition of "picking nits".

Here we go, blow by blow. Please point out exactly were MC's text constitutes "bullet manufacturers don't test their products".


MC's initial Post that appears to have prompted your allegation:


WR's 1st response - your initial allegation that MC stated "companies do not test their bullets in ballistic gel or on carcasses":


MC's responds that you assumed incorrectly:


WR's 2nd request that MC explain himself regarding a statement that he in fact never made:


WR's third challenge, after failing to elicit a response from MC with your 2nd request:


MC finally responds to your allegation (false to my mastery of the language) that he's "claimed manufacturers are not testing their bullets in ballistic gel or carcasses.":


WR confronts MC for the 4th time, after MC has responded as clearly as the language can communicate that he "did not say the manufacturers are not testing":


WR, to my understanding of the language, you provide this quote from MC to demonstrate your contention that MC stated something that he already told you he didn't say:


So, if you'd indulge me - identify the MC text that communicated what you claimed he said - 5 times. Specifically, that "manufacturers are not testing their bullets in ballistic gel or carcasses."

And if you can't do that, could you answer the question - What is it you're trying to accomplish?" Are you trying to harass MC to the point of silencing his participation on the Forum?

The first sentence of the post you quoted provides your answer.

Originally Posted by WildRose
I'm pretty adept at the use of the language. He's either claiming they are not testing them, or they are making false claims as to whether or not they are testing them in media.

The other alternative is that they are testing them but falsifying their results.

Is it really too much to ask for a clarification and source of the information?

Tests we perform give us information based on the conditions of the tests we do. Those results will not be the same as the mfg's results unless the conditions of the test are identical in both cases.

Again, there is no insult in asking for clarification and evidence to support categorical statements of fact.

 

[varmintH8R]

The first sentence of the post you quoted provides your answer.



The other alternative is that they are testing them but falsifying their results.

Is it really too much to ask for a clarification and source of the information?

Tests we perform give us information based on the conditions of the tests we do. Those results will not be the same as the mfg's results unless the conditions of the test are identical in both cases.

Again, there is no insult in asking for clarification and evidence to support categorical statements of fact.

The way I read (posts 39 and 41 I think, I'm not taking notes), MC states that the published lower expansion velocities do not hold up to his testing in calibrated gelatin. Because of this, he can make the blanket statement that hunting bullet manufacturers routinely claim expansion at velocities that don't even expand in gelatin. A few posts later, you challenge his testing and say conditions might not be the same, and thus you don't buy in to his claim

I never see where MC stated bullet mfgs don't test - he says that when he tests the results aren't even close. Assuming he is using calibrated gelatin and tracking velocity accurately, I'm not sure how his parameters could create such different results. I think based on his testing, his opinion is fair and to him can be taken as "fact".

If you disagree with his testing being a viable comparison to what bullet manufacturers publish for low velocity expansion limits, you are already on record as saying so and it becomes an "agree to disagree" discussion from there.

My 2C

Brandon

 

[Michael Courtney]

MC wrote:

Given Nosler's propensity for publishing inflated BC numbers, I also tend to doubt that they have tested all their long range accubond models to ensure reliable expansion down to their marketing claim of 1300 ft/s.

An assumption.

Is it BAD or WRONG to suggest that a manufacturer who exaggerates one specification may exaggerate others as well? I think it is prudent and reasonable.

We've measured a lot of BCs of Nosler bullets, and very few have met their published spec. See: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a555975.pdf

A figure from that technical report published by the Department of Defense is attached. It demonstrates the double whammy of BCs and expansion thresholds both failing to meet their spec. We tested the 150 grain Nosler E Tip. We measured a BC of 0.324 which was much less than their advertised 0.469. The lower BC reduces the effective range (assuming Nosler's lower expansion velocity of 1800 ft/s from 500 yards to 350 yards. If you then add that you only get 10-20% expansion at 1800 ft/s (in spite of Nosler's claim that the optimum performance window goes down to 1800 ft/s) and substitute a more reasonable 2200 ft/s lower velocity threshold (50% expansion), the effective range is reduced to 200 yards from a 7.62x51mm (.308 Win).

I think you're picking nits here since we all know that when bullets fall below their recommended velocities expansion problems occur.

You and I may know this, but colleagues and I are continually fielding questions from DoD personnel, wildlife managers and others involved in public policy about why every possible shooting application cannot be met with lead free ammunition. Why can't lead free bullets be used at long range? Why can't lead free bullets be used in subsonic applications? Why can't we make infantry ammunition completely lead free? Etc. The idea that bullets have a lower velocity limit below which they do not perform well is new to many. And many of those with a cursory knowledge take manufacturer's ballistics tables (or computations with published BCs) as solid evidence of real field performance.

No, but then long range hunters are a tiny fraction of the market. If they (Barnes) are making claims that the bullets will expand below 2000fps they should have testing data to show it.

They have data for a couple of bullets in the 1700-1900 ft/s range, but nothing close to what would be needed to support the claim from the Barnes web site:

Do TSX Bullets always expand on game?
Because our TSX Bullets are solid copper and have a specially engineered nose cavity, it is nearly impossible for them not to expand.

Some public policy types and wildlife managers read this and conclude Barnes TSX bullets are suitable for use in subsonic culling operations of deer and wild hogs, since there is no mention of a velocity window, only "nearly impossible for them not to expand."

Have you asked them (Nosler) to provide data to show they in fact will open up at 1,300fps?

I'm waiting for a reply. Somehow I bet it falls short of a specific affirmation with supporting pictures and/or data for all their Long Range Accubond models.

Berger, Barnes, and Hornady became much better about publishing more accurate ballistic coefficients over the last decade since our group and other independent parties (Litz, etc.) began measuring and publishing more realistic BCs. But Nosler has resisted the trend toward more accurate specifications. Likewise, many of the handgun bullet companies got much better with gelatin testing as the result of the availability of independent test results. Now, it's time for the rifle bullet companies to improve their accuracy with respect to how their rifle bullets perform in gelatin, especially with respect to the lower end of the velocity window. I think one might be legitimately concerned that Nosler may be slow in this regard, just as they have been slow to improve their accuracy of published BCs.

 

[WildRose]

MC wrote:





Is it BAD or WRONG to suggest that a manufacturer who exaggerates one specification may exaggerate others as well? I think it is prudent and reasonable.

An assumption is still an assumption, it is neither bad nor wrong. It is morally neutral.

We've measured a lot of BCs of Nosler bullets, and very few have met their published spec. See: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a555975.pdf

A figure from that technical report published by the Department of Defense is attached. It demonstrates the double whammy of BCs and expansion thresholds both failing to meet their spec. We tested the 150 grain Nosler E Tip. We measured a BC of 0.324 which was much less than their advertised 0.469. The lower BC reduces the effective range (assuming Nosler's lower expansion velocity of 1800 ft/s from 500 yards to 350 yards. If you then add that you only get 10-20% expansion at 1800 ft/s (in spite of Nosler's claim that the optimum performance window goes down to 1800 ft/s) and substitute a more reasonable 2200 ft/s lower velocity threshold (50% expansion), the effective range is reduced to 200 yards from a 7.62x51mm (.308 Win).

Ok, good information.

You and I may know this, but colleagues and I are continually fielding questions from DoD personnel, wildlife managers and others involved in public policy about why every possible shooting application cannot be met with lead free ammunition. Why can't lead free bullets be used at long range? Why can't lead free bullets be used in subsonic applications? Why can't we make infantry ammunition completely lead free? Etc. The idea that bullets have a lower velocity limit below which they do not perform well is new to many. And many of those with a cursory knowledge take manufacturer's ballistics tables (or computations with published BCs) as solid evidence of real field performance.

Ignorant people come to uneducated conclusions which gives value to your work.

They have data for a couple of bullets in the 1700-1900 ft/s range, but nothing close to what would be needed to support the claim from the Barnes web site:

Do TSX Bullets always expand on game?
Because our TSX Bullets are solid copper and have a specially engineered nose cavity, it is nearly impossible for them not to expand.

Some public policy types and wildlife managers read this and conclude Barnes TSX bullets are suitable for use in subsonic culling operations of deer and wild hogs, since there is no mention of a velocity window, only "nearly impossible for them not to expand."

Agreed, they are doing everyone a disservice. However, only the most ignorant and naive of people believe advertising claims blindly.

I'm waiting for a reply. Somehow I bet it falls short of a specific affirmation with supporting pictures and/or data for all their Long Range Accubond models.

Please share it with us when you get it.

Berger, Barnes, and Hornady became much better about publishing more accurate ballistic coefficients over the last decade since our group and other independent parties (Litz, etc.) began measuring and publishing more realistic BCs. But Nosler has resisted the trend toward more accurate specifications. Likewise, many of the handgun bullet companies got much better with gelatin testing as the result of the availability of independent test results. Now, it's time for the rifle bullet companies to improve their accuracy with respect to how their rifle bullets perform in gelatin, especially with respect to the lower end of the velocity window. I think one might be legitimately concerned that Nosler may be slow in this regard, just as they have been slow to improve their accuracy of published BCs.

I think one is wise to have doubts, but we need to be careful about making assumptions and statements of fact without evidence to support them. I know there's no insult in asking for supporting evidence.

 

[Pdvdh]

Is it really too much to ask for a clarification and source of the information?

Again, there is no insult in asking for clarification and evidence to support categorical statements of fact.

You've asked MC to clarify a statement that he never made. You asked for a source of information to a conclusion that you made on behalf of MC. You don't have control of the language sufficient to know the mind of another man.

The insult is ignoring the fact that MC never stated what you continue to claim that he did. He told you this himself. The other alternative is you don't believe him - or worse.

 

[WildRose]

You've asked MC to clarify a statement that he never made. You asked for a source of information to a conclusion that you made on behalf of MC. You don't have control of the language sufficient to know the mind of another man.

The insult is ignoring the fact that MC never stated what you continue to claim that he did. He told you this himself. The other alternative is you don't believe him - or worse.

MC and I are both adults and can have a conversation amongst ourselves. Neither of us needs you to interpret for us nor to play umpire.