Op,
In regards to your Original question:
"Less Fussy"
Not sure if your query is limited
Only to load development, accuracy & velocity, or a wider range of overall bullet performance characteristics.
In regards to "Choice of Less Fussy Bullet"
I typically choose my particular bullet choice based on several factors that may vary for intended use.
A few items I consider for hunting use (species & distance) are:
1)Terminal Performance Design.
2)Ballistic Efficiency & Accuracy
3)Bullet construction
4)Bullet weight & manufacturing tolerances, consistency
5)Bullet design,
Ease of loading / tuning
6)availability
Currently I'm working on a couple offerings from Hammer. I chose Hammers as they "Best" fit my current desired use criteria.
Recently worked up a fireforming load for my 6.5 MAX with the 123 Absolute's after researching data & utilizing information from users on this forum. Great Hammer Bullet thread sources here.
After brass prep I Loaded up 50 pcs of brass with 64gr. Re-26, Fed 210, Seated to desired depth & crimped the bullet.
Easy Right?
Initial 20 used for barrel break in & fireforming shot Excellent. New rifle setup, bore sighted, 1st shot at 50 impacted within 1/2" of center,
.
Took it right out to 200, couple clicks, shot the next 19 in a break in sequence & all grouped nicely.
Shot a few at rocks at various distances, 350-500 yds. all shot extremely accurate.
Pretty much Zero Fuss !!
No seating depth or powder charge change.
In a subsequent 100 yd.range session I shot the remaining 25 pcs of brass to form with the same load.
First target
Shot 1 to foul & then 11 more into a nice group.
Ran a patch thru bore to check for fouling & copper & only had powder residue, No Copper.
Second target
Shot 1 more fowler & then 12
more into a nice group.
Again "No Fuss".
All 50 shot Very Consistently
Even tho I was only focused on New barrel & Fireforming brass.
Next I'll load up the formed brass with the 110 Hammer Hunter to see how they do. Decided to try a lighter weight bullet in the 20" suppressed barrel with a faster burn rate powder. I'll do a complete load work up with these.
I have no doubt they will perform well.
My initial impressions with the Hammer Bullet in regards to being "Less Fussy" is Positive.
I may give the 122 Cayuga a try after that if I get more positive terminal performance information
With their design. I'm still not sure I'm comfortable with the "Designed To Tumble"
theory & the recommendation to shoot for bone to initiate expansion of the harder material.
I would maybe use them in a more specific application.
Not sure I'll try any of the tipped versions at this time tho as
I'm not sure there is an advantage to a tip to initiate expansion without inconsistency's or failure.
Based on my prior experience.
My impression on the monos is not all were or are being designed & built with the same initial performance goal. This is evident in the fact that some perform better than others in certain situations.
Some seem designed & built with emphasis on ballistic performance First and terminal performance second.
Others designed & built with emphasis on terminal performance First
and ballistic performance second.
I'm comfortable with the Design, Quality, Performance & manufacturing process of the Hammer product, especially the terminal performance approach
of Hammer Design, & continued
Process improvement.
Hopefully manufacturers can improve design Even thru different approaches to deliver A Better Bullet.
I don't think there is or will be a do it all perfect bullet.
All come with trade offs,
Design, Materials, Quality.
Some good ones …Yes
And Definitely some Great ones for Specific applications.
Good Luck on your "Less Fussy"Quest.