Looking for personal experience with GMX performance on elk

[FrogFire7]

There are several good mono's on the market that have been mentioned, all will perform.

How cost effective it is depends on how much you plan to shoot.

These bullets are made one at a time on a lathe, not stamped out of sheet's, heated and filled with lead on an assembly line like traditional lead core bullets.

Most of these mono's being mentioned will go through 3-6 or more different machining processes before they are complete.

You simply can't do that for the same money you can make traditional lead core jacketed bullets.

To me what makes them "cost effective" is the fact I don't end up trying four or five different bullets before I get lucky and find one, maybe two that my rifle likes and knowing that as long as I do my part at the reloading bench and behind the trigger the bullets will do the job every time.

How "cost effective" is it to spend your precious few days off a year or pay for an expensive hunt out of the country or guided hunt in country if the half price bullet let's you down when that critical shot at a "one in a lifetime trophy" or worse, on what you were going to be living off of for the next week while continuing to hunt?

I've always been a cheapskate that'll haggle a rattlesnake right out of his skin but I won't let the cost of bullets deter me from shooting a quality bullet I know will do the job every time.

I agree with you. I didn't mean that I was going to take a cheaper traditional bullet, rather that I just had considered a comparable BC traditional bullet to use for practice. When it comes down to the hunt, I want to use the BEST possible projectile available to me plus I know I'll have to use a bunch of them in load development AND testing to make sure they I know exactly how they fly, along with whatever "practice" bullets I may or may not use. In the grand scheme of hunt costs, I think too many people get hung up on ammo costs which are really very negligible

 

[1bamashooter]

I tried the GMX in my 243 shot 2 deer at less than 100yds neither passed through I switched to ttsx.

 

[FrogFire7]

I tried the GMX in my 243 shot 2 deer at less than 100yds neither passed through I switched to ttsx.

Did the bullets break up? Or were the shots not broadside? I am surprised to hear that a mono wouldn't pass through on a whitetail, on two different occassions. Granted that was a fairly light projectile, but still. I mean, I'm basically looking for consistent expansion AND penetration. The penetration sounds a bit lacking in that situation.

 

[WildRose]

Did the bullets break up? Or were the shots not broadside? I am surprised to hear that a mono wouldn't pass through on a whitetail, on two different occassions. Granted that was a fairly light projectile, but still. I mean, I'm basically looking for consistent expansion AND penetration. The penetration sounds a bit lacking in that situation.

The problem I've seen is passing through without expanding.

On the list of mono's available today they would be pretty well the last I'd choose.

 

[1bamashooter]

Did the bullets break up? Or were the shots not broadside? I am surprised to hear that a mono wouldn't pass through on a whitetail, on two different occassions. Granted that was a fairly light projectile, but still. I mean, I'm basically looking for consistent expansion AND penetration. The penetration sounds a bit lacking in that situation.

Broadside both exploded no exit wound. On hit shoulder bone one didn't I'd heard great results from folks using them in light calibers but mine wasn't worth a ****. The TTSX is a much better bullet in my opinion.

 

[Gord0]

Barnes may claim expansion at 1600, but you definitely aren't getting full expansion down that low. The GMX I believe is made of a slightly harder copper. I'd limit both of them to about 1800-2000fps to ensure expansion. Steve from Hammer bullets has already stated the problems with shooting very large critters and hitting their very large bones with those beautifully expanded Barnes bullets.

 

[FrogFire7]

Barnes may claim expansion at 1600, but you definitely aren't getting full expansion down that low. The GMX I believe is made of a slightly harder copper. I'd limit both of them to about 1800-2000fps to ensure expansion. Steve from Hammer bullets has already stated the problems with shooting very large critters and hitting their very large bones with those beautifully expanded Barnes bullets.

Good point. Plus I think below that velocity (at least with these lighter bullets) I doubt there is truly enough energy to penetrate as much as I want.

 

[Gord0]

Good point. Plus I think below that velocity (at least with these lighter bullets) I doubt there is truly enough energy to penetrate as much as I want.

Sectional density tends to help quite a bit with penetration. You won't find that in light bullets

 

[Bravo 4]

I agree with you. I didn't mean that I was going to take a cheaper traditional bullet, rather that I just had considered a comparable BC traditional bullet to use for practice. When it comes down to the hunt, I want to use the BEST possible projectile available to me plus I know I'll have to use a bunch of them in load development AND testing to make sure they I know exactly how they fly, along with whatever "practice" bullets I may or may not use. In the grand scheme of hunt costs, I think too many people get hung up on ammo costs which are really very negligible

The first part of your post I can relate to.
Now your last statement about ammo prices being very negligible I don't necessarily agree with as it is subjective to the rifle/caliber and intended performance level. My big gun can cost close to $5 per shot when loaded with the higher cost bullets I use. Over the course of the barrel's life that is currently sitting on it the cost of ammo could be as much as the rifle itself (several thousand dollars)...or a guided elk hunt! Where as the 30-06 Ruger American I have sitting next to it the ammo cost is more along the lines of what you speak, however if high volume shooting can add up quick. The cost of preparing for a hunt can cost as much (or more) than the hunt itself. If you are looking at it as that one (or two, or three) bullets you fire to get that animal on the ground as being the cheap part of the hunt, then yeah that's true. I don't, I look at it like the hundreds or thousands I sent that got me to that point.
Like the cost of fuel in my truck; I've spent more on fuel for that thing in the past three years than what the truck cost. Or I may spend $30 in fuel once I reach my hunting destination, but the $600 I spend to and fro needs to be factored in.

 

[Deleted member 107796]

Gordo raises a great point and at the end of the day, is the slippery slope between bullet choice and placement accuracy and precision. I used to think that if I reloaded high end bullets, I'd find the magic bullet. After seeing statistically significant, incredible accuracy with such off the shelf, copper clad chunks of lead, like the Federal Fusion and finding examples of my rifles that shoot something like a simple Interlock or Interbond, very well, over a higher end bullet, I came to the conclusion that if you find a bullet that your rifle loves and that bullet can do the job when placed well, you've found the magic bullet. Most folk at this sight can and choose to make a well placed shot and I have yet to see a bullet fail when well placed. I have at least 3 critters in my freezer that simply hate the GMX and my friend has at least as many that hate the Fusion.

 

[memtb]

Sectional density tends to help quite a bit with penetration. You won't find that in light bullets

Hence the reason that I stay with conventional, standard bullet weights, though I use and have been using mono-bullets since the early '90's! I may not get "light-speed" that many seem to prefer by going "light", but I also....have "never" been disappointed with their performance. Though my personal experience has "only" been on animals from a fox to a moose...at ranges from feet to 400 plus yards. Oh and....that with, a caliber "deemed" too large to use on smaller animals, with a mono bullet.

I'll stay with the mono's..... at the recognized,standard weights of cup and core bullets! memtb

 

[Gord0]

Light monos are great in certain situations. Heavy monos are great in certain situations. Light and heavy cup and cores have their place where they work great. Same as bonded, and A/H frames that are heavy and light. There's no perfect bullet for every situation you will be in. Know your bullet, and it's limitations, and hunt within those. We as hunters owe it to the animals we hunt to do that.

 

[FrogFire7]

The first part of your post I can relate to.
Now your last statement about ammo prices being very negligible I don't necessarily agree with as it is subjective to the rifle/caliber and intended performance level. My big gun can cost close to $5 per shot when loaded with the higher cost bullets I use. Over the course of the barrel's life that is currently sitting on it the cost of ammo could be as much as the rifle itself (several thousand dollars)...or a guided elk hunt! Where as the 30-06 Ruger American I have sitting next to it the ammo cost is more along the lines of what you speak, however if high volume shooting can add up quick. The cost of preparing for a hunt can cost as much (or more) than the hunt itself. If you are looking at it as that one (or two, or three) bullets you fire to get that animal on the ground as being the cheap part of the hunt, then yeah that's true. I don't, I look at it like the hundreds or thousands I sent that got me to that point.
Like the cost of fuel in my truck; I've spent more on fuel for that thing in the past three years than what the truck cost. Or I may spend $30 in fuel once I reach my hunting destination, but the $600 I spend to and fro needs to be factored in.

Very valid points. And I agree, I just see all the time around here where the local guys won't spend more than $20 for a box of core lokt. Granted our animals aren't nearly as heavy as the ones out west, it just gets frustrating sometimes to see all the other costs involved and then people skimp on one of the most important items.

 

[FrogFire7]

Gordo raises a great point and at the end of the day, is the slippery slope between bullet choice and placement accuracy and precision. I used to think that if I reloaded high end bullets, I'd find the magic bullet. After seeing statistically significant, incredible accuracy with such off the shelf, copper clad chunks of lead, like the Federal Fusion and finding examples of my rifles that shoot something like a simple Interlock or Interbond, very well, over a higher end bullet, I came to the conclusion that if you find a bullet that your rifle loves and that bullet can do the job when placed well, you've found the magic bullet. Most folk at this sight can and choose to make a well placed shot and I have yet to see a bullet fail when well placed. I have at least 3 critters in my freezer that simply hate the GMX and my friend has at least as many that hate the Fusion.

I agree Mike. Shot placement is absolutely the number one key to a successful kill. And if placed correctly i think pretty much ANY projectile would do the job. I just want something that'll help me out if something goes awry and I encounter heavy bone. Things happen! Unfortunately