Berger "Thick" bullets

[AF Shooter]

I have both in .308 cal 210's. The Targets work much better for me as I am trying to push velocity. The other point that I think helps is that the bearing surface is greater on the Target. They are measured with a Stoney point on both ends, and they are different. I have seen other posts that they are the same. Anyone else have both and want to measure?

I will hunt with these as the velocity with a well placed shot is the ticket for the targets bullets.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

The thick jackets were created to solve the failure problem, which they have.
Since we haven't tested them for terminal performance, we can't know how they might perform, so it would be irresponsible for us to recommend them for hunting, or even say they're OK for hunting.

Since I know some of you guys like to live on the bleeding edge and you're working on things that the front line answers don't suffice, I'll offer the following additional information.

The thick jackets are thicker by about ~0.005" (more or less depending on caliber) in the bearing surface area. From the bearing surface to the mouth, the jackets have more taper than the standard (hunting) jackets, so that the thickness at the mouth is nearly the same as it is for the standard jackets.

What does that mean for expansion? One could assume (dangerous) that since the jacket thickness is close to the same at the mouth, that expansion would be initiated the same as it is for the standard jacket, but that the subsequent expansion/fragmentation could be less violent/excessive. Another way to say it is that the bullets might not provide enough expansion/fragmentation on long range, low velocity impacts as the standard jackets because the thicker jackets could hold the bullet together more.

Then again it's possible that the thicker jackets could prevent adequate expansion/fragmentation even at nominal/close range impact speeds. This is the possibility that we're afraid of, and it's why we can't advise them for hunting, which translates to advising against their use for hunting.

Jacket design is a classic trade-off between terminal performance on low velocity impacts vs survivability in high velocity / rough barrel applications. Reliable performance on low velocity impacts drives jacket thickness down, while survivability drives it up. The shooter who wants a bullet that survives 3400+ fps MV from a possibly rough barrel, and have that same bullet expand reliably on a long range shot where the impact velocity is 1800 fps or less is really asking a lot.

We're doing our best to understand and improve the design of jacketed hunting bullets in order to make the best bullets possible for as wide of a range of applications as possible. I see our current offerings of thick and thin jackets as a stepping stone toward a better solution. One shouldn't have to decide between high velocity survivability and low velocity terminal performance, but that's currently the situation.

Hope this sheds some useful light,
-Bryan

Bryan,

What you say about the thicks is interesting. I got a box of 210's for load development in my 300 WSM and 300 RUM. I've got some loaded up for my RUM and have a couple of elk tags to fill. I'm going tomorrow so maybe I'll get a chance to use one. I've got some 180 E-Tips as well and they get the call unless I feel I have a good opportunity to use the 210's. Also have a couple of deer tags to fill. They might be great for a test on culling a couple of does.

I'll let you all know what happens if I get a chance o use one.

Mark

 

[royinidaho]

Since I know some of you guys like to live on the bleeding edge and you're working on things that the front line answers don't suffice, I'll offer the following additional information.

Jacket design is a classic trade-off between terminal performance on low velocity impacts vs survivability in high velocity / rough barrel applications. Reliable performance on low velocity impacts drives jacket thickness down, while survivability drives it up. The shooter who wants a bullet that survives 3400+ fps MV from a possibly rough barrel, and have that same bullet expand reliably on a long range shot where the impact velocity is 1800 fps or less is really asking a lot.

We're doing our best to understand and improve the design of jacketed hunting bullets in order to make the best bullets possible for as wide of a range of applications as possible. I see our current offerings of thick and thin jackets as a stepping stone toward a better solution. One shouldn't have to decide between high velocity survivability and low velocity terminal performance, but that's currently the situation.

Hope this sheds some useful light,
-Bryan

Bryan,

Thanks for your openness, its much appreciated.

I understand you and the folks @ Berger are doing your best to improve jacket/bullet design. It is much appreciated. I use VLDs in all my rifles except the 338 RUM and the "probably rough" barreled extreme magnum..

Some just don't have the patience to wait. I'm one of those folks. Also making shavings and chips is about as much fun as shooting. I'm also learning that there is much more precision and consistency in making bullets than I ever appreciated.

Thanks for sharing

 

[AZShooter]

Good comments Bryan. I understand your position.

I intend to continue to shoot the 180s in my 7 rem mag, but they won't be the hunting versions.
The barrel showed that the hunting versions are now being damaged at round count 235. I'll be shooting the heavier target versions at paper, predators and varmints till next fall. Unless I get indicators that they don't work well, I intend to use it on coues wt next fall. Based on some of the bullets that have been used on these tiny 100 lb deer I have no concerns as to the results. I may include at least one shoulder for extra insurance but have confidence that the target version will do the job.

 

[BountyHunter]

AZshooter,

My barrel is the Lilja 1-7 twist, 3 groove and 30" in 270 Cal.

Yours will be a good test, a very good test. I'm betting that the bullets won't come apart but may distort as the front begins to turn in the rifling and the base is still in the neck. The 150 270 VLD don't come apart w/the 7 twist but I'm confident that there would be no problems with a 10 twist but, who would want to be limited to a 150 grain bullet in a 270 Allen Mag. Surely not me!

I'll do some expansion test comparisons between the 168 VLD standard and thick versions. If that works out I'm going to reduce the diameter of the 168 and 180 thicks from 284 to 277. My luck will be or has been "Hmmm that didn't work". The "odds" are only slightly in my favor. Slightly is enough for me. Hey, its nothing but time and $$$.

If the diameter reduction doesn't work, I have a much better and more expensive plan "B". Plan "C" is out there but A and B will have to be tried in order. That's the order of lower cost, higher risk. Once thru A and B the largest investments will have been made and C will can be rationalized as a fairly inexpensive upgrade but way more hassle.

Hmm sounds like a gain twist from 9 or 10 to 7 might be worth trying? Bartlein and Krieger have them now.

BH

 

[MontanaRifleman]

I didn't put any elk down today... however... there is one less yote in the world. I did it a favor... it had a nasty case of mange and runing on just 3 legs, the fourh was pulled up. I made a lucky 120 yd "trotting" shot in about a half value, 20-30 mph gusty wind. I used a tree branch as a rest and led it by about 1/2 body legngth and got it in the head with a 210 thick. It left about a 2" hole, but I dont think this counts as a test. Off again tomorrow....

 

[royinidaho]

Hmm sounds like a gain twist from 9 or 10 to 7 might be worth trying? Bartlein and Krieger have them now.

BH

Here comes the ol' yabut.........AZshooters barrel has only 235 shots and "some" of the 8 twist 270 Lilja 3 groovers begin their problems @ around 400 shots.

Those are practically new barrels and fairly expensive so why not come up with a jacket specific for the cartridge and barrel.

My barrel is getting quite a few shots down it and I figure 1 set back, or 1 throat extension and 1 set back before I rebarrel. Thus I figure the barrel has more life left than I do.

Some one else will have to provide a history on the progressive twist barrels......