One last thought... It trips me out how Barnes markets their bullets as being the latest greatest for hunting. In the southern part of this dictatorship I live in lead ammo is illegal to hunt with. Two years ago a buddy and I bagged a black bear. He shot it with a .35 cal barnes and the bear began climbing down the tree is was in. We thought he clean missed so I shot it with a .30 cal barnes and it dropped. Turns out his bullet entered left lung, heart, and right lung. My bullet hit the spine. The exit wound from my buddy's bullet was only about the size of two fingers, so roughly three times the size of the entry wound. My bullet expanded to the size of his bullet (.35 ish caliber). I recovered my bullet and it's still sitting on my mantle in the case it was fired from. That season I talked to other hunters who shot bucks, made what they felt were decent hits, saw minimal blood and never found the animals. I think with the solid bullets unless you hit bone, its a gamble.
The reason for the above rant was to point out my thought on target bullets for hunting. If a target bullet is deemed sub par for hunting by one bullet maker because of maximum weight retention and minimal fragmentation or expansion, how could another company claim superiority for hunting by the same set of conditions? I guess it comes down to real world experience VS marketing hype.
