Amount of money and time i spend behind my rifle shooting nothing's worse then getting that critter at 100 yards lol like **** i shoulda built a muzzleloaderFunny how the world turns…..I'm always hoping fir a shot under 50 yards!memtb
Bullet Construction vs Lethality
- Thread starter nralifer
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
dfanonymous
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2016
- Messages
- 2,271
While I think BC is a part of the equation, as far as construction goes, there's a ton of conditions that need to be matched to get a bullet to perform.
Just talking about terminal performance, an ideal bullet would be bonded, expanding with optimal weight retention and penetration. You'll notice that bonded bullets aren't used much outside of the accubond as a high-ish bc bullet match performance bullets form factor is concerned. There's a reason for it.
Another alternative, and one I'm not overly sure about as it's still a relatively new market is monolithic bullets.
Most bullets have a particular MV range that they perform best for that expansion to penetration ratio. Generally, most terminal performance I've come across in my life, one way or another, is that bullet may have been good for one set of conditions including certain distances, where another bullet wasn't as good. If you found a good bullet that worked well at 1000y, chances are it would frag out at 200y as an example.
Just talking about terminal performance, an ideal bullet would be bonded, expanding with optimal weight retention and penetration. You'll notice that bonded bullets aren't used much outside of the accubond as a high-ish bc bullet match performance bullets form factor is concerned. There's a reason for it.
Another alternative, and one I'm not overly sure about as it's still a relatively new market is monolithic bullets.
Most bullets have a particular MV range that they perform best for that expansion to penetration ratio. Generally, most terminal performance I've come across in my life, one way or another, is that bullet may have been good for one set of conditions including certain distances, where another bullet wasn't as good. If you found a good bullet that worked well at 1000y, chances are it would frag out at 200y as an example.
Last edited:
They are on my M70 375 H&H DGRThey still make those sights of iron?
memtb
Well-Known Member
(personally I'm opposed to shooting anything in the *** to try to kill it, no matter the distance).
"Oblique" would not be defined as in the @$$! I believe it would be a steep or sharp angle shot taken from the front or the rear…..rear, "not" meaning @$$!
However, perhaps your math and anatomy classes may have differed from mine!
memtb
memtb
Well-Known Member
memtb
This is why i shoot big guns for big critters. Ya you can kill a bull at 800 yards with your creedmoor with a little luck and everything goes right. Little angle little wind animals moves ect. A lot can go wrong on shot placement where big bullet can fight the odds
DoneNOut
Well-Known Member
I did too. I also thought my bullet composition was a good "Bullet Point" LOL!!!
Guess they DIDN'T FIT THE NARRATIVE?!
Last edited:
Calvin45
Well-Known Member
Okay I'll bite haha.
There is never going to be a hunting bullet that doesn't require some element of compromise or trade off. But there are of course some that can check more boxes than others, boxes such as
expansion and broad wounding even at low velocity against light target resistance (double lung deer at distance),
sufficient penetration even at high impact velocity against heavy target resistance (moose shoulder in the bush), - this is not the same thing necessarily as high weight retention though of course they are related - zero retained weight obviously won't penetrate much haha, but retained weight is a means to an end and not an end in itself.
sufficiently high ballistic coefficient to ensure intended terminal performance - even this can be a trade off, it's possible for a bullet to have a lower bc and still be more useful than some high bc offerings at distance IF it reliably performs at significantly lower impact velocities - however bc in and of itself is NEVER A BAD THING, but it can be a bad thing if it's the number one consideration in a hunting bullet. Not the same thing at all tho.
Straight line penetration - this is very important for true all range all game all shot angle performance and many bullets will fail here, veering off course wildly. This also rules out match type fragmenting bullets which are still entirely viable hunting bullets, in some cases the best ones possible as far as fast killing goes - I've yet to see anything kill any faster than my 300 win with a 225 eld m -, but are entirely unreliable for heavy resistance at close range or quartering angle shots My dad lost an elk to this effect many years ago, having hit the scapula and deflecting the bullet such that, while the elk did die, it covered so much ground that they ran out of daylight and couldn't track it, the coyotes having already eaten most of it by morning. The basic soft point bullet hit the scapula at a funny angle and wildly deflected. If it had gone straight through the story would have been different. I find (and it just makes sense) that the more rear heavy a bullet and the sleeker and longer it's ogive and yes the pointier the meplat (with some ways around this) the less reliably it will penetrate in a straight line if hitting bones at angles or encountering uneven resistance of any kind - which is why ballistics gel tests are useful but also not really - a body is not uniform consistency throughout, not at all. This is where high bc bullets are at their weakest - the highest bc bullets are pointy as all get out, have short shanks and long ogives, and are as aggressively rear heavy as is possible. There is a reason that when the stakes are high and the critters are dangerous high bc bullets are a poor choice and deliberately blunt wide meplats and long shanks with high sectional densities rule whether it's expanding bullets or solids - it's not just because it's close range so long range bullets aren't necessarily, it's because bullets designed to be optimal for long range are in all ways INFERIOR TERMINALLY when the going gets tough and up close and personal
I have found Nathan Foster to be an excellent resource for the most part regarding matching projectile toughness, sectional density, and velocity to the resistance anticipated for the intended game animal.
From my perspective it's really hard to beat the federal trophy bonded tip and edge tlr/terminal ascent as the closest thing to a bullet that does what you've described in the op. Still have decent enough bc, open up better than many bonded bullets and monos, there is no real upper velocity limit terminally courtesy of the solid copper rear half, and the frontal lead core does facilitate expansion AND makes these bullets much more front heavy both before and after impact than ANY monometal copper bullet or high bc match type bullet, even more than most hunting bullets. That combo of easy deforming lead, front heaviness, a solid non deforming shank, and still getting a half decent bc is very very appealing.
If bc isn't as much of a concern the original trophy bonded bear claw is awesome, as are swift a frames, woodleigh weldcors, and to a lesser extent Nosler partitions - and it's NOT the solid copper partition that makes that bullet awesome any more than it IS the violent soft lead nose. The two together assure broad wounding with penetration.
There is never going to be a hunting bullet that doesn't require some element of compromise or trade off. But there are of course some that can check more boxes than others, boxes such as
expansion and broad wounding even at low velocity against light target resistance (double lung deer at distance),
sufficient penetration even at high impact velocity against heavy target resistance (moose shoulder in the bush), - this is not the same thing necessarily as high weight retention though of course they are related - zero retained weight obviously won't penetrate much haha, but retained weight is a means to an end and not an end in itself.
sufficiently high ballistic coefficient to ensure intended terminal performance - even this can be a trade off, it's possible for a bullet to have a lower bc and still be more useful than some high bc offerings at distance IF it reliably performs at significantly lower impact velocities - however bc in and of itself is NEVER A BAD THING, but it can be a bad thing if it's the number one consideration in a hunting bullet. Not the same thing at all tho.
Straight line penetration - this is very important for true all range all game all shot angle performance and many bullets will fail here, veering off course wildly. This also rules out match type fragmenting bullets which are still entirely viable hunting bullets, in some cases the best ones possible as far as fast killing goes - I've yet to see anything kill any faster than my 300 win with a 225 eld m -, but are entirely unreliable for heavy resistance at close range or quartering angle shots My dad lost an elk to this effect many years ago, having hit the scapula and deflecting the bullet such that, while the elk did die, it covered so much ground that they ran out of daylight and couldn't track it, the coyotes having already eaten most of it by morning. The basic soft point bullet hit the scapula at a funny angle and wildly deflected. If it had gone straight through the story would have been different. I find (and it just makes sense) that the more rear heavy a bullet and the sleeker and longer it's ogive and yes the pointier the meplat (with some ways around this) the less reliably it will penetrate in a straight line if hitting bones at angles or encountering uneven resistance of any kind - which is why ballistics gel tests are useful but also not really - a body is not uniform consistency throughout, not at all. This is where high bc bullets are at their weakest - the highest bc bullets are pointy as all get out, have short shanks and long ogives, and are as aggressively rear heavy as is possible. There is a reason that when the stakes are high and the critters are dangerous high bc bullets are a poor choice and deliberately blunt wide meplats and long shanks with high sectional densities rule whether it's expanding bullets or solids - it's not just because it's close range so long range bullets aren't necessarily, it's because bullets designed to be optimal for long range are in all ways INFERIOR TERMINALLY when the going gets tough and up close and personal
I have found Nathan Foster to be an excellent resource for the most part regarding matching projectile toughness, sectional density, and velocity to the resistance anticipated for the intended game animal.
From my perspective it's really hard to beat the federal trophy bonded tip and edge tlr/terminal ascent as the closest thing to a bullet that does what you've described in the op. Still have decent enough bc, open up better than many bonded bullets and monos, there is no real upper velocity limit terminally courtesy of the solid copper rear half, and the frontal lead core does facilitate expansion AND makes these bullets much more front heavy both before and after impact than ANY monometal copper bullet or high bc match type bullet, even more than most hunting bullets. That combo of easy deforming lead, front heaviness, a solid non deforming shank, and still getting a half decent bc is very very appealing.
If bc isn't as much of a concern the original trophy bonded bear claw is awesome, as are swift a frames, woodleigh weldcors, and to a lesser extent Nosler partitions - and it's NOT the solid copper partition that makes that bullet awesome any more than it IS the violent soft lead nose. The two together assure broad wounding with penetration.
Last edited:
memtb
Well-Known Member
I never mentioned petals…. and yes those do perform quite well. And yes again, once the petals are removed the wound channel is narrow is somewhat reduced because of mass loss!
That said, I'll take a minimally expanded bullet, of large diameter that retains all or most of it's mass over a small diameter bullet that sheds a great deal of mass….even with it's large, initial wound channel!
I'm saying your wrong…..that's merely my perspective! memtb
Since you edited to add, I wanted to address what you added. I've already seen several throw flags on testing done like you speak of. It was questioned as being legitimate and all but thrown out. So am I to believe it would suddenly be accepted now, and by me? No, I highly doubt that.
Once personal feelings, biases, and emotions can be dropped, perhaps we can have meaningful discussions and just take things for whatever they're actually worth- regardless of who it comes from.
DoneNOut
Well-Known Member
SLAM!
memtb
Well-Known Member
1/2 moa means little on animals in real world hunting situations at extreme ranges where we don't have wind socks along the bullets intended path, and wind speed meters only read the velocity at the shooter…..and the best intentions with "incorrect" adjustments equals a wounded and perhaps lost animal! memtb
DoneNOut
Well-Known Member
Awesome
