Long Range thick skin bullets

[Prowler]

Is this site run by the Obama administration? For someone's thread to be changed by a mod or the administrator is ********.

A spade is a spade. If the person who started the thread reported his findings and formed his opinion he has the right to do so. Let alone he asked questions about the bullets in question albeit a Berger or what ever name it's branded.

For others to point out faults in shot placement, distance holds no merit in this instance. The Moose wasn't gutshot so the shot wasn't marginal by any means. Being crucified over and over cause others believe the hunter should have been at a certain distance and bowinkle should have been broadside is ludicrous. It's hunting people. Not a glorified cable hunting show. Not everything in life happens the way it should so why would hunting be any different.

If the bullet in question cannot handle the parameters in which this situation occurred then something needs to be said so its not repeated. Berger should have also put the said bullet through the ringer via shooting different game so that the consumer can choose which bullet for his/her application.

Yes bowinkle died, so one can say that it wasn't a failure or better worded a complete failure. Hell a roundball can get the job done flung from a smoke pole. Which has been done more times one can count. With today's bullets this should have hammered the moose with authority and all should be left to discuss was the hunt and how well it tasted at the dinner table.

 

[Lefty7mmstw]

This thread has taken on a very odd character; a nearly blind dyslexic comes to mind.

Yep, there's a problem, but in the end does it matter??lightbulb

 

[cohunter14]

I too am putting this thread to rest. I think pretty much everyhting has been said! I tend to try to be a peace maker, and try not to let my emotions run my mouth. SOMETIMES I'm even successful. I have always tried to post MY results whether they are popular or not. I have said good and bad things about Nosler, Berger, my own, and others and will continue to try to make helpful, constructive posts.
Here is my suggestion to whomever it may concern: I think what turns people off is when you post something, good or bad, based on YOUR experience and someone comes back with an off the wall cheap shot because it isn't what they believe,and it turns into this kind of stuff! I think if we just let our experience talk, and let everyone else decide what THEY belive, we will all be better off. Enough said! Best of luck to all of you this season! I'm going hunting.......Rich

I have been following along on this entire thread and I have to agree with this. Why is it that instead of taking a thread like this and trying to find out what this issue is, it has to turn into a 'lack of evidence' or someone trying to throw Berger under the bus? I am on this site to learn and figure out how to be a better hunter and this thread could have been a lot more helpful if it hadn't been spun the wrong way. Imagine if this thread would have gone the way the Accubond LR thread has gone, where more testing helps identify what the true issue was.

Instead, because the OP doesn't have enough evidence to prove that this actually happened, he gets blasted. Come on, you think the OP really posted this to intentionally throw Berger under the bus? Or was he trying to share his experience and get some insight? I see far more people who are on here to learn and to help others learn as well than there are trolls who want to try to throw a certain bullet under the bus. That is what makes this place so great. Oh well, my opinion I guess.

One last thing: I do completely agree that the title of this thread should not have been changed unless the OP wanted to make the change. Again, we are here to learn, not be misled. If the OP thought it was a bullet failure, then he has the right to say so, just like others feel that the Accubond LR has been failing. If you can post something about one company and it is okay because they aren't a sponsor, then you should be able to post the same thing about a company who is a sponsor. My two cents...

Additional Edit: as far as Jeff's posts go, I will say that typically he is extremely helpful and is a great contributer to this forum. However, I think you have to be careful about being so opinionated about one item like this. What happens if one of these bullet failures happens on one of your numerous hunts this year? It is ALWAYS a possibility, no matter what bullet you are talking about. But I would much rather hear Jeff post about it happening so we can all learn more than to have him not post about it because of the fear of getting bashed.

 

[Beng]

Failure implies that the bullet did not work as designed. The bullet worked as designed, thus it's no failure.
The outcome was still not satisfactory.
So either shot placement or the tool applied was wrong. Shot placement was acceptable, this allows for one conclusion, that the tool wasn't appropriate for the job.
Reporting experiences and educating people on the adequacy of certain bullets for specific situations is a great thing, blaming other people for decisions you made isn't.
This thread was definitely educative, I wouldn't have expected penetration that shallow. I wouldn't use bullets without enough data on their actual performance though, even if this data is just anecdotic. Everyone can learn from this hunt's results, do your bloody research yourself before pulling the trigger. Don't rely on information that isn't first hand or is presented in a questionable manner resp. without proof. Think about the bullets construktion, what might it do when presented with less/more resistance than encountered in the data you have collected.
Analyze your rifles ballistic performance:
Define what game you will hunt, define which amount of energy you need or believe to need, define what velocity is necessary to make your bullet change it's sd far enough to dump most of the energy inside the animal. Consider subpar condition (quartering &c). Don't alter your settings if you see you can't touch something that far out there.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Failure implies that the bullet did not work as designed. The bullet worked as designed, thus it's no failure.
The outcome was still not satisfactory.
So either shot placement or the tool applied was wrong. Shot placement was acceptable, this allows for one conclusion, that the tool wasn't appropriate for the job.
Reporting experiences and educating people on the adequacy of certain bullets for specific situations is a great thing, blaming other people for decisions you made isn't.
This thread was definitely educative, I wouldn't have expected penetration that shallow. I wouldn't use bullets without enough data on their actual performance though, even if this data is just anecdotic. Everyone can learn from this hunt's results, do your bloody research yourself before pulling the trigger. Don't rely on information that isn't first hand or is presented in a questionable manner resp. without proof. Think about the bullets construktion, what might it do when presented with less/more resistance than encountered in the data you have collected.
Analyze your rifles ballistic performance:
Define what game you will hunt, define which amount of energy you need or believe to need, define what velocity is necessary to make your bullet change it's sd far enough to dump most of the energy inside the animal. Consider subpar condition (quartering &c). Don't alter your settings if you see you can't touch something that far out there.

Spot on

 

[MontanaRifleman]

I have been following along on this entire thread and I have to agree with this. Why is it that instead of taking a thread like this and trying to find out what this issue is, it has to turn into a 'lack of evidence' or someone trying to throw Berger under the bus? I am on this site to learn and figure out how to be a better hunter and this thread could have been a lot more helpful if it hadn't been spun the wrong way. Imagine if this thread would have gone the way the Accubond LR thread has gone, where more testing helps identify what the true issue was.

Instead, because the OP doesn't have enough evidence to prove that this actually happened, he gets blasted. Come on, you think the OP really posted this to intentionally throw Berger under the bus? Or was he trying to share his experience and get some insight? I see far more people who are on here to learn and to help others learn as well than there are trolls who want to try to throw a certain bullet under the bus. That is what makes this place so great. Oh well, my opinion I guess.

One last thing: I do completely agree that the title of this thread should not have been changed unless the OP wanted to make the change. Again, we are here to learn, not be misled. If the OP thought it was a bullet failure, then he has the right to say so, just like others feel that the Accubond LR has been failing. If you can post something about one company and it is okay because they aren't a sponsor, then you should be able to post the same thing about a company who is a sponsor. My two cents...

Additional Edit: as far as Jeff's posts go, I will say that typically he is extremely helpful and is a great contributer to this forum. However, I think you have to be careful about being so opinionated about one item like this. What happens if one of these bullet failures happens on one of your numerous hunts this year? It is ALWAYS a possibility, no matter what bullet you are talking about. But I would much rather hear Jeff post about it happening so we can all learn more than to have him not post about it because of the fear of getting bashed.

Unfortunately there was a lot more emotion in this thread instead of level headed analysis. The title did not help, although I understand the OP was trying to post the info and results as he saw them. Inflammatory titles invite inflammatory discourse.

I don't think anyone is doubting the OP's report of the events that happened, except maybe some question the accuracy of the his report of the deer shot through the shoulders. I think the big difference of opinion was whether or not it was indeed a failure or whether it was a poor choice of tools as Beng said. That's what the fuss was about. That said, there are people with axes to grind (haters) who will falsify or exaggerate reports of failure and I'm not saying the OP is one of those. I in fact believe his account of the moose hunt and I think just about everyone else does as well. I think some of the posters who made hit and run inflammatory posts are some of the people with axes to grind and they are usually seen for who and what they are. They are the chaff that needs to be separated from the objective analysis of the subject.

So, let's review the facts objectively.

A moose was shot from a rear quartering angle with a 250 bullet fired from a 338 LM inside 100 yds.

Was there anything wrong about the range? No.

Was there anything wrong about the shot angle? No

Was there anything wrong about the cartridge used? No

Was there anything wrong with the outcome? No

Was there anything wrong about the bullet? Somewhat

What if anything was wrong with the bullet? Let's consider...

Did it fail to expand? No

Did it expand to violently? Debatable. It didn't perform in the manner expected, but it did perform. Deeper penetration was hoped for.

Why didn't perform in the manner expected? Almost certainly because of a high velocity impact. What conclusion do we draw?

Load the 250 gr bullet into a smaller cartridge... or...

Use a larger, slower bullet in the 338 LM

I don't think anyone can rationally argue with any of the above.

However, there are the irrational folks that are "emotional" about bullets and dismiss facts for bias. So, because of their bias they ignore the objective facts and objective reasoning and claim "failure" and say things like "target" bullets should not be used for hunting.

Whether or not you want to call it a "failure", the FACTS are..

The moose is dead

The bullet was the wrong one for the circumstances

Another larger bullet would certainly have done a better job

The Op and hunter choose the wrong bullet. That's not meant to flame or assign blame. It's a fact. They choose the wrong tool for the job. No biggie, learn from it and choose the right tool next time. We've all made mistakes. learn and move on and don't get all personal about it.

 

[Pdvdh]

Failure implies that the bullet did not work as designed. The bullet worked as designed, thus it's no failure.

stenger's statements and expressed opinion did not communicate (let alone imply) the bullets did not work as designed. His was a clear, concise statement, which was limited in scope: These bullets failed on his buddy's bull moose.

That's all I have for evidence. I hope this helps someone. Don't use a berger 250 gr for shooting moose because they will fail
Peace.

Interjecting "fail" in a new and different context, based on design standards for bullet performance distorts stenger's statements, their proper interpretation, and his conclusions.

Reporting experiences and educating people on the adequacy of certain bullets for specific situations is a great thing

That's what stenger did.

blaming other people for decisions you made isn't.

I don't recall stenger blaming other people. To the best of my recollection, he may have complained that there were no manufacturer product use recommendations or guidance available, only after he was hen-picked and told that he should have known better than to use these bullets on moose.

He blamed one specific bullet. He stated the bullets failed on his buddy's bull moose. That was his opinion, and those of his buddy and the professional guide.

Efforts to turn stenger's statements into anything more or less than he expressed, after all this discussion, will likely be construed as an effort to inject a differing slant, angle, interpretation, opinion, and conclusion - than those of stenger.

 

[cohunter14]

Unfortunately there was a lot more emotion in this thread instead of level headed analysis. The title did not help, although I understand the OP was trying to post the info and results as he saw them. Inflammatory titles invite inflammatory discourse.

I don't think anyone is doubting the OP's report of the events that happened, except maybe some question the accuracy of the his report of the deer shot through the shoulders. I think the big difference of opinion was whether or not it was indeed a failure or whether it was a poor choice of tools as Beng said. That's what the fuss was about. That said, there are people with axes to grind (haters) who will falsify or exaggerate reports of failure and I'm not saying the OP is one of those. I in fact believe his account of the moose hunt and I think just about everyone else does as well. I think some of the posters who made hit and run inflammatory posts are some of the people with axes to grind and they are usually seen for who and what they are. They are the chaff that needs to be separated from the objective analysis of the subject.

So, let's review the facts objectively.

A moose was shot from a rear quartering angle with a 250 bullet fired from a 338 LM inside 100 yds.

Was there anything wrong about the range? No.

Was there anything wrong about the shot angle? No

Was there anything wrong about the cartridge used? No

Was there anything wrong with the outcome? No

Was there anything wrong about the bullet? Somewhat

What if anything was wrong with the bullet? Let's consider...

Did it fail to expand? No

Did it expand to violently? Debatable. It didn't perform in the manner expected, but it did perform. Deeper penetration was hoped for.

Why didn't perform in the manner expected? Almost certainly because of a high velocity impact. What conclusion do we draw?

Load the 250 gr bullet into a smaller cartridge... or...

Use a larger, slower bullet in the 338 LM

I don't think anyone can rationally argue with any of the above.

However, there are the irrational folks that are "emotional" about bullets and dismiss facts for bias. So, because of their bias they ignore the objective facts and objective reasoning and claim "failure" and say things like "target" bullets should not be used for hunting.

Whether or not you want to call it a "failure", the FACTS are..

The moose is dead

The bullet was the wrong one for the circumstances

Another larger bullet would certainly have done a better job

The Op and hunter choose the wrong bullet. That's not meant to flame or assign blame. It's a fact. They choose the wrong tool for the job. No biggie, learn from it and choose the right tool next time. We've all made mistakes. learn and move on and don't get all personal about it.

Mark, I agree with all of this. I guess I was just hoping to see more of a reason that these didn't work 'correct.' Some may say they didn't fail and that they worked correct, but to me a bullet that you are hunting with should penetrate deeper than this at this distance. I know that bergers shine at longer distances than shorter, but I guess here is where I am coming from: if I am on an elk hunt and have my 300 RUM loaded up with 215 Hybrids (not the heaviest caliber offering) and make this same shot on an elk, what is going to happen? Granted, the reason I would load them is to be able to shoot at a longer range if the opportunity presented itself. However, not everything goes as planned

So, I guess my thoughts coming away from this is are, should the 215 Hybrid even be considered if this circumstance comes up? Do you have to have a 230 so you have the 'heaviest' option? I mean, considering the OP was using the OTM, which from my understanding should penetrate better than the Hybrids, what is to be expected? If you use the 230, does it have to be the OTM as well? Maybe we just need to realign the 'minimum' distances that the bergers can be shot at? Although, I will say that Jeff (Broz) has been very helpful sharing results where the Hybrids worked fine at shorter distances.

Sorry for the long-winded post, but I guess it gets us back to the bullet conversation! I guess it would just be nice to know where we can 'expect' this to happen. I hang around on this forum a lot and read all of these posts and I am still confused! LOL!!

 

[RockyMtnMT]

I was one who posted with passion earlier and probably should not have. I felt that the OP was maligned as the problem and dog piled on. People said that the OP did not do the proper research as to proper bullet selection and that he should have obviously known better.

I have looked at the information that Berger supplies and can not find anywhere in their data anything that tells a hunter what hunting bullet is good for what in any given caliber or weight. They give a blanket statement about their classification of hunting bullets and how well they work on big game. Nosler does give some insight into their hunting bullets and what they are good for. People have said that the OP should have done a better job of researching or testing. I guess the moose was a test? I read as many of the bullet performance posts as I get a chance to here and I find the Berger information at best to be ambiguous. The general consensus is that the bigger the better. But some of the Berger bullets that are not the biggest for caliber are considered to be good options. So I am not so sure that it is an obvious bad choice in bullet for moose based on the available information. I was corrected once in that the bullet that was chosen was not a hunting bullet and that is correct. But the bullet that the OP chose was a thicker jacket bullet because it was to be used on moose and he wanted to have better penetration.

Sooo...

My questions to anybody left that has not given up on this thread.

How should the OP have gotten better information before he chose the bullet that he chose?

Could it be that the bullet did not fail by design but failed in living up to expectations?

Who is responsible for giving the bullet it's reputation of superior hunting ability?

Is it possible that the failure in this is Berger not responsibly marketing their product?

Now I am not trying to corner anyone here. I think that these are the legitimate questions that come out of this thread.

Steve

 

[MontanaRifleman]

Mark, I agree with all of this. I guess I was just hoping to see more of a reason that these didn't work 'correct.' Some may say they didn't fail and that they worked correct, but to me a bullet that you are hunting with should penetrate deeper than this at this distance. I know that bergers shine at longer distances than shorter, but I guess here is where I am coming from: if I am on an elk hunt and have my 300 RUM loaded up with 215 Hybrids (not the heaviest caliber offering) and make this same shot on an elk, what is going to happen? Granted, the reason I would load them is to be able to shoot at a longer range if the opportunity presented itself. However, not everything goes as planned

So, I guess my thoughts coming away from this is are, should the 215 Hybrid even be considered if this circumstance comes up? Do you have to have a 230 so you have the 'heaviest' option? I mean, considering the OP was using the OTM, which from my understanding should penetrate better than the Hybrids, what is to be expected? If you use the 230, does it have to be the OTM as well? Maybe we just need to realign the 'minimum' distances that the bergers can be shot at? Although, I will say that Jeff (Broz) has been very helpful sharing results where the Hybrids worked fine at shorter distances.

Sorry for the long-winded post, but I guess it gets us back to the bullet conversation! I guess it would just be nice to know where we can 'expect' this to happen. I hang around on this forum a lot and read all of these posts and I am still confused! LOL!!

I might be wrong, but I think the Hybrids have a thicker jacket than the OTM's.

Whatever, I am actually glad this event happened and this thread was started (It could have been presented differently) because it has caused me to re-evaluate my use of the Bergers. Before this thread, I would have considered the 215 Hybrid in a 300 RUM, but not anymore. I am even a little concerned about the 230's with an MV of 3200 fps on a non-optimal shot on an elk at close range. Had a chat with Broz about this, wondering the best way to test the bullets at high velocity and he suggested on an antelope, which I think is good advise. In the meantime, only broadside shots on elk at close quarters with 230 Bergers out of a RUM. I don't think it will cramp my hunting. Or, I could do the 2 load, short and long method, with CEB's and Bergers.

Based on Broz's results and others, and this thread, IMO the upper limit of the "target" bullets is about 2800 fps until other data comes out to change that. Like Beng said, "Research it out, know your bullet's limitations"

I do think Berger should also start doing this and printing the "optimal velocity range" on their boxes. They won't do that with their target and tactical bullets, so it's up to us to figure that out.

Another very good resource we have is the "Show Us your Kills" thread. There's a lot of good info and data in there.

All that said, I still don't know what bullet I will finally pick for any of my rifles yet because I haven't done the load development yet. The CEB's could get the call.

 

[MontanaRifleman]

I was one who posted with passion earlier and probably should not have. I felt that the OP was maligned as the problem and dog piled on. People said that the OP did not do the proper research as to proper bullet selection and that he should have obviously known better.

I have looked at the information that Berger supplies and can not find anywhere in their data anything that tells a hunter what hunting bullet is good for what in any given caliber or weight. They give a blanket statement about their classification of hunting bullets and how well they work on big game. Nosler does give some insight into their hunting bullets and what they are good for. People have said that the OP should have done a better job of researching or testing. I guess the moose was a test? I read as many of the bullet performance posts as I get a chance to here and I find the Berger information at best to be ambiguous. The general consensus is that the bigger the better. But some of the Berger bullets that are not the biggest for caliber are considered to be good options. So I am not so sure that it is an obvious bad choice in bullet for moose based on the available information. I was corrected once in that the bullet that was chosen was not a hunting bullet and that is correct. But the bullet that the OP chose was a thicker jacket bullet because it was to be used on moose and he wanted to have better penetration.

Sooo...

My questions to anybody left that has not given up on this thread.

How should the OP have gotten better information before he chose the bullet that he chose?

Could it be that the bullet did not fail by design but failed in living up to expectations?

Who is responsible for giving the bullet it's reputation of superior hunting ability?

Is it possible that the failure in this is Berger not responsibly marketing their product?

Now I am not trying to corner anyone here. I think that these are the legitimate questions that come out of this thread.

Steve

Steve,

You are not one of those irrational axe grinders. We all get a little passionate sometimes.

Your questions are good and legitimate and I think I at least partially answered them in the previous post.

How should the OP have gotten better information before he chose the bullet that he chose?

I might have made the same mistake, but... I always lean to heavy for cal or twist (in the case of the monos) Lesson learned here, just go with the heavies with frangible bullets. The emotional side of this wants to assign blame. Who's at fault? Who or what failed? No value in that.

Could it be that the bullet did not fail by design but failed in living up to expectations?

The bullet was used outside it's operational parameters. Those parameters were unknown. Expectations were made on lack of knowledge and experience.

Who is responsible for giving the bullet it's reputation of superior hunting ability?

The bullets do have superior hunting performance when used within their parameters.

Is it possible that the failure in this is Berger not responsibly marketing their product?

I think, as I've said a bunch of times, Berger should provide guidance in the use of their bullets. But, there is little doubt that they will NOT provide hunting parameters for their target and tactical bullets. At present, they are on record as not recommending them for hunting, including in Broz's thread on the 215's. We do it any way, so it's up to us collectively to find out those limitations.

Maybe we can talk more about around the campfire after a good day's hunt

 

[Fiftydriver]

Wow, is this still going on.....

I think the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result when you do the same thing again.

Now, I am not saying Stenger is insane in any way so lets not go there. What I am saying is that he feels that the Berger bullets are not working for him, WHY IN THE HELL WOULD YOU STILL KEEP USING THEM??? That does not make much sense.

THOUSANDS out there use Berger bullets with no problems of any kind.

Have yet to hear if the Deer mentioned was killed and recovered. Guess that is not an important part of bullet performance.

Those of you that expect or demand every animal you shoot to drop to the shop, hate to break it to you but its not going to happen all the time so you will be much happier to give up on that dream. Only way you will put an animal in its nose is to take out the CNS or pin both shoulders and break both of them. Even if you break both shoulders, its not uncommon to get to the animal and still have it alive, unable to move but still alive.

Still, I find it amazing that over a year ago, Stenger reports of a Berger bullet FAILURE on whitetail but then recommends a lighter version for use on MOOSE!!!

This does not make any sense.

Stenger, let me give you the only advice you need, DO NOT USE ANY MORE BERGER BULLETS, that will solve your problems with berger bullets. That however may not solve your problems with your next bullet choice, time will tell and I am sure we will hear about it if its not perfect.

 

[Pdvdh]

My questions to anybody left that has not given up on this thread.

How should the OP have gotten better information before he chose the bullet that he chose?

Could it be that the bullet did not fail by design but failed in living up to expectations?

Who is responsible for giving the bullet it's reputation of superior hunting ability?

Is it possible that the failure in this is Berger not responsibly marketing their product?

Now I am not trying to corner anyone here. I think that these are the legitimate questions that come out of this thread.

Steve

A large Alaskan bull moose dwarfs a large bull elk. The Thread was about bull moose, and this Post of mine is solely about application on bull moose. You can only shoot one per year per hunter and I presume the same applies in Canada. There aren't a lot of moose hunters in Alaska using Berger or any other thin target-jacketed lead core bullets on moose. I don't know a single individual that uses them on moose. I would estimate that 90% of bull moose are shot at less than 350yds, so don't expect an abundance of long range bullet pathology reports on bull moose, no matter the bullet in use. That being said, the bullets by far and away in most common use are controlled expansion bullets that are designed to retain a majority of their weight in a single mass. They are not designed to convert the majority of their weight to fragments and shrapnel. This means that it will be a long time before lots of bull moose kills with target style bullets information is available for consumption. And an even longer time before extended range moose kills past 600yd information becomes available.

Fiftydriver stated it's a mistake to select a target style bullet for bull moose, and he evidently feels that way strongly enough about this to state the use of target-style bullets on moose constitutes a bullet selection failure. Having shot a number of moose with a variety of bullets in several different calibers, and over a variety of distances, I believe there are much better bullet options available for the vast majority of moose hunters, under the vast majority of moose shot opportunities that will be experienced.

If I ever considered using a target style bullet on bull moose, those cartridges would only be carried for opportunistic use on a bull at a very long range, where the target style advantages were of maximal benefit, and the bullet impact velocity would be reduced to help ensure adequate penetration. The cartridges in the chamber or magazine would always be a controlled expansion bullet. There's a butt load of good ones to choose from. The target style bullet provides absolutely no advantage on large bull moose on any shot less than ~600yds, in my opinion. You'll risk a bullet blow up at high velocity closer range hits, and the consequent lack of penetration to inflict fatal damage. All without realizing any meaningful advantages of the target style bullets.

Again, a mature Alaskan bull moose is enormous. The extreme accuracy of the target style bullet isn't advantageous, because almost any quality controlled-expansion bullet these days is accurate enough for easy placement into the lethal zone out to 600yds. The high BC value of the target bullets increases retained velocity, but the high impact velocity with a fragmenting target-style bullet is actually detrimental to bullet penetration. The high BC value is nice for bucking the wind, but not a critical factor, because the horizontal width of the lethal zone is 2 feet.

I don't believe readers should apply too much from this thread about bullet performance on moose to the smaller large game animals that encompass the majority of large game hunted. A bullet that's exiting the far side of a deer has just penetrated the depth required to reach the vitals of a large bull moose.

 

[Pdvdh]

Wow, is this still going on.....

Stenger, let me give you the only advice you need, DO NOT USE ANY MORE BERGER BULLETS, that will solve your problems with berger bullets. That however may not solve your problems with your next bullet choice, time will tell and I am sure we will hear about it if its not perfect.

Wow, you're still firing away at stenger??? The guy that related a story of a Berger bullet performance on a bull moose with a rating of fail? Somewhat less than a perfect 10?

Thanks for the helpful assistance Kirby. You've done yourself proud, and I'm sure stenger considers you a real pal.