• If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here

Best copper or bronze mono-metal bullet for expansion?

They're full of crap. There's some back and forth about terminal performance in certain monos with SG's under 2, but there's no mono that is unstable in flight at 2.0
My recommendation is if a mono needs that much stability, find another one. Because the rest don't.
As indicated in #60 and #63, it is fairly new. Dr. Michael Courtney, an LRH member, has a PhD in Physics, and did some "empirical" study on this matter. If you want to call the study full of crap, I am pretty sure he'll gladly give you more details. There are also other SMEs in the industry that are recommending an SG of 2 for the monos. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and no one is being forced to adhere to it. If peep wants to keep an SG of 1.5, have at it, and life goes on.

In SH, there's thread "Progress in Developing Copper ULD Bullets" that address this issue, David Tubbs helped in the testing of the prototype .338 Cal at 1000Y. The OP is from Patagonia Ballistics.
 
Last edited:
As indicated in #60 and #63, it is fairly new. Dr. Michael Courtney, an LRH member, has a PhD in Physics, and did some "empirical" study on this matter. If you want to call the study full of crap, I am pretty sure he'll gladly give you more details. There are also other SMEs in the industry that are recommending an SG of 2 for the monos. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and no one is being forced to adhere to it. If peep wants to keep an SG of 1.5, have at it, and life goes on.

In SH, there's thread "Progress in Developing Copper ULD Bullets" that address this issue, David Tubbs helped in the testing of the prototype .338 Cal at 1000Y.
Could you please post the study if you don't mind? I'm interested in reading it.
 
Could you please post the study if you don't mind? I'm interested in reading it.
You can research his name, and majority of his studies are published and available. He also partners with his wife, who also has a PhD in Physics.

You can also research studies by James Boatright, for instance, A Coning Theory of Bullet Motions, and The Third Generation Long-Range Rifle Bullets.
 
Last edited:
I recently bought a rifle chambered in 300 RUM, 28" inch barrel, 1:8" twist. Looking to hunt with it and shoot heavier 220gr to 250gr. My experience with the 300 RUM is limited. My shooting so far has been with Hornady ELD-X 220gr, A-Tip 230gr and 250gr, and Berger LR Hybrid and Elite Hunter 245gr.

I'm looking to get into non-lead bullets for hunting to collect meat (deer, elk, caribou, moose).

What are the better expanding copper or bronze mono-metal bullets on the market that don't "pencil" through that you've used? Specifically, if shooting an animal through the lungs through soft tissue which bullet expands and causes lots of shock and damage and isn't too sensitive on velocity? Trying to avoid shoulder/heavy bone shots and meat loss. I don't want any lead in my meat. Do any perform better in 300 RUM 28" inch barrel in the 220gr to 250gr ?

There's quite a few mono metals today...

Barnes: TSX, TTSX, VOR-TX, LRX
Hammer: Shock Hammer, Hammer Hunter, DeadBlow Hammers, Absolute Hammers,
Hornady: CX
Norma: Eco Strike
Sig: Copper Hunting
Winchester: Copper Impact

Would the Hammer DeadBlow expand the most?
The Hammer Dead Blow is a critter smacker for sure. Lot's of good options though. To me it depends how far you want to engage. You'll need to choose your bullet around some of those intended use parameters. Have had good success with various Hammer, Apex Afterburner, McGuire Copper Rose, and Badlands projos. (Badlands is no more, unfortunately)

Maybe you gave more specifics since. I didn't read the whole thread.
 
Someone has created an utter mess here, bottom line contact the manufacturer for a recommendation or follow their literature. The shooting world is FULL of opinions that don't have any skin in the game or product reputation on the line! You can research and PHD yourself stupid, far better to keep it simple, load a bullet and shoot something.
 
Last edited:
As far as the 2.0 stability factor for monos, Bryan Litz told me personally it's what they use and recommend for their baseline. It's what they found to be the number for full stability and BC potential when they did all their original testing with monos/solids and also when developing the Berger Solid.

That said, it's the same concept as the 1.5 SG baseline with lead core bullets- it's a baseline for achieving full stability and full BC potential (although you can gain some BC with further SG but the increase is overall insignificant at that point).

Just like with lead core bullets, a stability factor below the baseline 2.0 with a mono doesn't mean it won't still shoot well, print well on target, perform well terminally, etc. It just mainly means you won't be achieving the full potential BC of that particular bullet. Dropping well below it can or will result in actual stability of flight issues and result in inaccuracies and/or key-holing, but that would be well below 1.5 even.

I never said you have to be at 2.0 but it is recommended to get the full external ballistic potential from the bullet. It's food for thought and provides more insight on the subject is all. I figured it was pertinent information to this thread seeing how it was progressing.

Good luck.
 
Someone has created an utter mess here, bottom line contact the manufacturer for a recommendation or follow their literature. The shooting world is FULL of opinions that don't have any skin in the game or product reputation on the line! You can research and PHD yourself stupid, far better to keep it simple, load a bullet and shoot something.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
As far as the 2.0 stability factor for monos, Bryan Litz told me personally it's what they use and recommend for their baseline. It's what they found to be the number for full stability and BC potential when they did all their original testing with monos/solids and also when developing the Berger Solid.

That said, it's the same concept as the 1.5 SG baseline with lead core bullets- it's a baseline for achieving full stability and full BC potential (although you can gain some BC with further SG but the increase is overall insignificant at that point).

Just like with lead core bullets, a stability factor below the baseline 2.0 with a mono doesn't mean it won't still shoot well, print well on target, perform well terminally, etc. It just mainly means you won't be achieving the full potential BC of that particular bullet. Dropping well below it can or will result in actual stability of flight issues and result in inaccuracies and/or key-holing, but that would be well below 1.5 even.

I never said you have to be at 2.0 but it is recommended to get the full external ballistic potential from the bullet. It's food for thought and provides more insight on the subject is all. I figured it was pertinent information to this thread seeing how it was progressing.

Good luck.
Thanks Aaron
That makes sense now on the 2 👍

Cheers
 
A few other things need to occur also for the bandaids to come off fully & I see that some companies are lifting the bar on that ability to balance pills terminally on what some pills can do ( still someway to go as no company produces what can be done oh yes I've got some recent tinkering on pills that is pretty cool & I ate crow on this proudly) but I still like a number around 2 or around there as my own personal minimum on most pills but on the odd one I'd happily use a 1.5 as terminally that design is superior but try to find those pills today 😢sadly they aren't made so I hope a company will one day give me the ability to see that type of pill on the shelves

Ps mark fixed his alloy if you haven't heard & even beat one of the best frangibles on the market today on killing efficiency @ low resistance low velocity impact in 6.5 tests I'd done so the bar is getting raised & more to come no doubt
Hey, Brett.

Yeah life gets busy and sometimes you just have to take breaks from social media lol.

Moving on, yes, certain bullets do behave better, terminally, by spinning faster. Spinning faster = a higher SG. The main thing you're benefiting from here terminally though is centrifugal force as the bullet does its thing inside the animal. It helps open up petals, release them if so designed to (or not), and overall just helps with the expansion of the bullet- even lead core.

Higher RPM's can exacerbate any flaws in a bullet though- particularly jacketed lead core bullets. It can lead to petal separation on certain monos not designed to shed petals too- along with excessive resistance. So it's not always best to spin them any faster than necessary.

My main point here though was simply the external ballistics of stability factor with monos, not the terminal side of it.

And yes, I still text and message with Mark and he's shared a lot of what he's been doing and working on. I'm excited for him.

Good chatting with you again.
 
Hey, Brett.

Yeah life gets busy and sometimes you just have to take breaks from social media lol.

Moving on, yes, certain bullets do behave better, terminally, by spinning faster. Spinning faster = a higher SG. The main thing you're benefiting from here terminally though is centrifugal force as the bullet does its thing inside the animal. It helps open up petals, release them if so designed to (or not), and overall just helps with the expansion of the bullet- even lead core.

Higher RPM's can exacerbate any flaws in a bullet though- particularly jacketed lead core bullets. It can lead to petal separation on certain monos not designed to shed petals too- along with excessive resistance. So it's not always best to spin them any faster than necessary.

My main point here though was simply the external ballistics of stability factor with monos, not the terminal side of it.

And yes, I still text and message with Mark and he's shared a lot of what he's been doing and working on. I'm excited for him.

Good chatting with you again.
Gday Aaron
Yes I picked up the main point of the 2
👍reality is that stuff is way over my head

Terminal is my world & that's where I initially went yep i failed to clear my head on where you were coming from
thanks for the clarification others may need to do the same 🤔

👍😎on mark

Cheers
 
As far as the 2.0 stability factor for monos, Bryan Litz told me personally it's what they use and recommend for their baseline. It's what they found to be the number for full stability and BC potential when they did all their original testing with monos/solids and also when developing the Berger Solid.

That said, it's the same concept as the 1.5 SG baseline with lead core bullets- it's a baseline for achieving full stability and full BC potential (although you can gain some BC with further SG but the increase is overall insignificant at that point).

Just like with lead core bullets, a stability factor below the baseline 2.0 with a mono doesn't mean it won't still shoot well, print well on target, perform well terminally, etc. It just mainly means you won't be achieving the full potential BC of that particular bullet. Dropping well below it can or will result in actual stability of flight issues and result in inaccuracies and/or key-holing, but that would be well below 1.5 even.

I never said you have to be at 2.0 but it is recommended to get the full external ballistic potential from the bullet. It's food for thought and provides more insight on the subject is all. I figured it was pertinent information to this thread seeing how it was progressing.

Good luck.
👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆
 
Top