How Energy Goes to Work For Us Regarding Bullets and Terminal Performance
So, starting out, ultimately knowing how the particular bullet you're wanting to use converts energy into force is what you should focus on and will be much more helpful than going with just a basic rule of thumb on minimum energy. There are many bullets out there that will produce excellent wounding with well under 1000ft-lbs of energy. That's because they're highly efficient at converting energy into force. Conversely, there are many bullets out there that are not efficient at converting energy into force or don't convert very much of it into force.
Many frangible lead core bullets are very efficient and effective at converting energy into force. Getting that proper balance though is crucial and achieved by having sufficient starting mass and not placing the shot in an area where the amount of impact resistance is too much for the impact velocity. An adequate amount of mass at the start can really help with that, as does adjusting shot placement for close range shots. A well-constructed and properly selected frangible mono can be very effective as well, to be fair. I'll go into more detail on that later.
Moving forward, energy goes to work by converting to force. Not all bullets turn their energy into force, or at least not a lot of force. Some are much better than others and need less energy to begin with to do so. How they convert energy to force is highly dependent upon their construction and the mechanics of how they behave terminally.
This is where the terms "energy dump" and "energy transfer" come in. As a bullet converts its energy into force, it rapidly loses momentum. If the bullet loses all its momentum from producing a huge amount of force, it typically doesn't exit. Typically, the higher the rate of momentum lost, the more force is produced, and more wounding occurs. That said, you still want to balance it all out so that it occurs within the chest cavity and does the most damage to the vitals. You don't want the bullet to lose all its momentum on or near the surface, for example.
Also, the more momentum the bullet still has, the more force it's still producing. If it produces a ton of force, but doesn't lose it all, and not at a rate higher than the speed its traveling, it'll still exit. We see this often with certain soft-constructed lead core bullets, in certain scenarios.
Touching on Certain Terms Coined as it Relates to Terminal Ballistics and More Specifically to Petal-shedding Monolithics
Slip planes: relate to plasticity, or more specifically plastic deformation and how the copper reacts, deforms, and breaks away after impacting an animal. This is material science. It has a lot to do with how and why the nose/ogive of monos like Hammer, Apex, Cutting Edge, etc. come apart and break away from the shank. Differences in alloys affect this as well, like if the petals fracture into many pieces, a few large pieces, if the shank looks as though the petals chipped off, or if it's more of a clean break, etc.
Shaped Charge, Pop, Detonation: In reference to the nose coming apart and petals separating rapidly. As in, the nose essentially explodes upon/after impact. Since there's no actual explosive in the nose of these bullets, it's not the same as an actual shaped charge and the force created as the petals expand, peel back, and separate is just instant massive hydraulic force, which pushes the fluid and tissues outward (both forwards and perpendicular), producing a ton of outward force and pressure in the process. This would cause the ribcage to expand and would produce what looks like a "bubble", as has been coined, formed in the chest cavity.
So, with that said, the flat surface area created and left behind on the shank of such a bullet produces far more outwards (perpendicular) force than a pointed or completely rounded shape. And less contact surface means less overall opposing force to decrease the forward momentum, and it also decreases drag.
That said, a lead core bullet that sheds weight can produce a similar transfer/conversion of energy into a rapid pressure increase and hydraulic force, and the mushrooming and wider contact surface, even if more rounded, produces a lot of perpendicular force as well. It just tends to produce more opposing force and drag and loses momentum at a higher rate, and its penetration potential CAN be less.
So, by ensuring said lead core bullet has enough mass at the start, and retains enough mass, and also retains enough velocity after the initial impact and shedding of weight, it can and will still penetrate deeply and this is when we see exits. Having a rounded front/edges also has the effect of reducing some drag and lowering some of the opposing forces. The amount of wounding produced is still massive as well.
We see similar internal damage with both types of bullets too, in the form of puréed organs, from the hydraulic force blowing them apart, and overall wide wounding. This still is dependent on other things though. It's not always guaranteed with either type of bullet.
Mass tends to be a bigger factor with soft constructed lead core bullets, and more specifically: retained momentum. Getting the right amount and balance is definitely achievable though and putting it all together produces excellent results that have been well documented.
Bubble: In my opinion, this is a term that seems to be misunderstood. From my summation, it's a made-up term for what the bullet does as it enters, initiates the petal-shedding event, and then travels through an animal. Ironically, the same people that say energy dump and energy transfer isn't real use this term, so I've seen.
In reality, what this is, and what is occurring, it is indeed energy transfer and hydraulic force. The confusion of these terms seems to also come in part by things like that "Shooting Holes in Wounding Theories" paper, which there's been much discussion on about its legitimacy and the background of the writer and that no one seems to really know who this person really is and their actual experience, nor have I seen anyone figure out how to contact this person. So a separate reality and terminology has been created and in my opinion, that doesn't lineup with actual reality and actual science, at least not completely and as stated.
The term "bubble" has been used to ultimately refer to the huge rise in pressure inside the chest cavity from the bullet expanding very abruptly, then coming apart, and the extreme velocity itself.
What that actually is though is energy transfer and hydraulic force being produced as a result. Hydraulic force will literally apply pressure against what it is being exerted upon, therefore the outward pressure within the chest cavity will increase and cause the whole ribcage to expand. We see the same sort of thing with gel, as the whole block expands and shape-shifts upon impact. High speed camera footage shows us the hydraulic force and energy transfer much clearer. This effect, specifically the amount of energy transferred, and hydraulic force produced, is highly dependent upon bullet construction and how the bullet behaves upon impact. Not all perform the same and produce the same results.
Regarding Momentum in Reference to Terminal Ballistics:
Let's look at an example, comparing two relatively common bullets. One is a lead core bullet- the 215 grain Berger Hybrid, and the other is a mono- the 124gr Hammer Hunter.
So, comparing the 124gr Hammer to the 215gr Berger, mass-wise, we're talking a difference of .187 vs .324, in the form of sectional density. This helps us quantify and compare their mass more proportionally. We're also talking about a huge difference in construction and mechanics of how they work.
From what I've seen and experienced so far, bullets like Hammer varieties, Apex Outdoors Afterburners, LeHigh Defense Controlled Chaos, Cutting Edge varieties, etc. are all what I consider frangible in design. This is due to the fact they are purposely designed to shed weight and have the entire ogive section separate from the remaining shank upon/after impact- shedding away from the rest of the projectile.
So with that said, in theory they should also have a decent amount of starting mass since they're designed to shed a lot of weight, just like a soft/frangible lead core bullet. They need the retained mass in order to retain momentum. That will ensure they still have the ability or potential to produce adequate hydraulic force as they continue penetrating. If they lose too much momentum, and/or not create a wide enough surface area at the front of the remaining shank, penciling can or will still occur because the amount of hydraulic force produced will be greatly reduced. On the other hand, a lower amount of surface area would tend to allow the shank to not lose a ton of forward momentum and most frequently exit. This is compared to a mushroomed lead core or a softer alloy petal-shedding mono that still mushrooms after shedding the petals and creates with a wider surface area.
A soft/frangible lead core bullet, such as a heavy for caliber Berger, with plenty of mass to start with, will still shed a lot of weight in most scenarios, but it'll also still end up more mushroomed overall (wider overall surface area) than those listed monos. So that helps still produce wide wounding from hydraulic force even if they lose a lot of momentum as a result. They expend a ton of energy into the animal- in the form of hydraulic force- which creates the puree we tend to see from the lungs being destroyed.
The following formulas and equations give a basic look at some numbers regarding momentum and using a common scenario with the 124gr Hammer at a muzzle velocity (MV) of 4200fps and the 215gr Berger at a MV of 3200fps. The figures on amount of mass lost and amount of velocity lost is an estimation based on typical or advertised results, but obviously isn't a guarantee since getting those actual numbers will be pretty impossible to obtain. So, take this for whatever it may be worth. Maybe it's worth nothing to you, and I'm fine with that. I feel it's a good representative though to the real world. Also, the percentage of mass lost and velocity lost is in reference to after impact and after the main shedding of weight has occurred. The mass lost is the same for the Hammer at close and longer range because it seems that amount stays pretty consistent as long as the petals all completely separate and the bullet performs as designed. The Berger will vary based on impact velocity and impact resistance and that's why it's different. It'll obviously lose more mass with higher impact velocities and more resistance, hence why the numbers are what they are. This is simply to illustrate the point and get you thinking.
Momentum Formula:
P = MV
Momentum = mass X velocity
Hammer Hunter 124gr:
8.03 X 1280.16
Momentum = 10,280 Kilogram meters per second (Kgm/s)
Berger Hybrid 215gr:
13.93 X 975.36
Momentum = 12,611Kgm/s
*Note grains has been converted to grams and feet per second has been converted to meters per second.
Close Range Shot (MV):
Hammer:
Loses 40% mass = 4.82
50% velocity loss = 640.08
Momentum after weight shed and velocity loss = 4.82 X 640 = 3,085.19Kgm/s
Berger:
Loses 50% mass = 6.97
40% velocity loss = 585.22
Momentum after weight loss and velocity loss = 6.97 X 585.22 = 4,078.98Kgm/s
Longer Range Shot (600 yard adjusted impact velocity):
Hammer:
Loses 40% mass = 4.82
70% velocity loss (2522fps or 786.7m/s starting) = 236.01
Momentum lost after weight shed and velocity loss = 4.82 X 236.01 = 1,137.57Kgm/s
Berger:
Loses 30% mass = 9.75
60% velocity loss (2450fps or 747.76m/s starting) = 299.1
Momentum after weight shed and velocity loss = 9.75 X 299.1 = 2,916.23Kgm/s
So, if you look at simple cause and effect, and action/reaction, certain selling points with certain petal-shedding monos can be contradictory.
How can a bullet with less momentum and less mass penetrate completely, yet also produce the same or more hydraulic force (amount of wounding)? A huge amount of hydraulic force will create an opposing force to forward momentum. This is why even with more momentum a bullet like a Berger often doesn't exit. It sheds weight, but also still continues to mushroom. The fact that it still has more momentum but doesn't exit, yet retains a lot of mass, shows us it produced a ton of hydraulic force and that arrested the forward momentum rapidly.
Regarding Large Magnum Cartridges and/or Large Calibers vs Short Action and/or Smaller Caliber:
First off, I do use large magnums and will continue to do so because there are practical reasons to do so. I'm not too naive though to think you must use a magnum, 30cal minimum, and like a 200gr or heavier bullet with around 1500 or so foot pounds of energy, minimum, in order to be most successful. I use a lot of smaller cartridges and smaller calibers too, with the same success rate. Ultimately, the bullet is the hero, not the cartridge or even caliber size.
What cartridge is needed really depends. With certain bullets, certain distances needed, and certain game, sure a big magnum or large caliber might be what you want. But when you start tweaking things like exactly what bullet you're using (and in the right direction), you can still achieve desired results with much smaller cartridges, less powder, lighter bullets, lower recoil, etc. That's because you can create proper wounding and trauma still by using the right bullet. You can still do what is needed with less kinetic energy in the bullet because you're still untimely getting the actual amount of needed energy from the bullet and transferred directly into the wounding. That's what it's all about.
That's why shedding weight with bullets after impact works so well. There just needs to be enough starting mass so that there's also enough retained mass to keep the wounding going all the way through the vitals.
And thanks to the huge demand for high BC bullets nowadays, we have smaller caliber bullets, constructed with thin jackets and no bonding, that have plenty of mass (to get the increase in BC), plus cartridges coming out to get the most out of them with great efficiency.
The only people still having issues are those that do not understand bullet construction and terminal ballistics and are still picking the wrong bullet for the job or wrong combination with a particular cartridge and then placing it in a poor location on the animal for the particular scenario presented.
Now in regards to monos specifically, many have known for some time now, myself included, that the way to go is to actually have them shed weight, and not simply mushroom and retain as much weight as possible. We've known this since companies like Lehigh Defense and others first introduced their own copper bullets that shed weight (petals). We/they found that to truly get the best results in the form of productive energy transfer and hydraulic shock production, shedding weight is what needs to occur. Those initial designs and products though still weren't perfect and had other hurdles to get over to really get the most from them and to achieve the best results. Companies like Apex Outdoors, Hammer, Cutting Edge, etc. are evolutions of those initial designs.
That basic principle design was, or is, indeed good. The design to shed weight and still have a surface left that produces hydraulic force is crucial for best results. It allows for a rapid transfer of energy during the petal-shedding event, and without losing too much momentum as it still produces hydraulic forces and wide wounding.
What hurdles still remain though for this design and these companies are staying competitive with long range capabilities (low impact velocity performance and ability to retain as much velocity as possible), reliable and consistent expansion and full shedding of the petals without issues caused by necking over, tumbling, or not expanding at all, as well cost. We've seen certain companies do well, and others not so much. More companies pop up all the time too. Some are making great strides in those hurdles.
So, as these types of monos continue to evolve and improve, using them with large cartridges and calibers will be, and already is in many scenarios, unnecessary as well.
Aaron Peterson
See Part 1 here: https://www.longrangehunting.com/threads/what-goes-into-picking-the-right-bullet-part-1.376536/
So, starting out, ultimately knowing how the particular bullet you're wanting to use converts energy into force is what you should focus on and will be much more helpful than going with just a basic rule of thumb on minimum energy. There are many bullets out there that will produce excellent wounding with well under 1000ft-lbs of energy. That's because they're highly efficient at converting energy into force. Conversely, there are many bullets out there that are not efficient at converting energy into force or don't convert very much of it into force.
Many frangible lead core bullets are very efficient and effective at converting energy into force. Getting that proper balance though is crucial and achieved by having sufficient starting mass and not placing the shot in an area where the amount of impact resistance is too much for the impact velocity. An adequate amount of mass at the start can really help with that, as does adjusting shot placement for close range shots. A well-constructed and properly selected frangible mono can be very effective as well, to be fair. I'll go into more detail on that later.
Moving forward, energy goes to work by converting to force. Not all bullets turn their energy into force, or at least not a lot of force. Some are much better than others and need less energy to begin with to do so. How they convert energy to force is highly dependent upon their construction and the mechanics of how they behave terminally.
This is where the terms "energy dump" and "energy transfer" come in. As a bullet converts its energy into force, it rapidly loses momentum. If the bullet loses all its momentum from producing a huge amount of force, it typically doesn't exit. Typically, the higher the rate of momentum lost, the more force is produced, and more wounding occurs. That said, you still want to balance it all out so that it occurs within the chest cavity and does the most damage to the vitals. You don't want the bullet to lose all its momentum on or near the surface, for example.
Also, the more momentum the bullet still has, the more force it's still producing. If it produces a ton of force, but doesn't lose it all, and not at a rate higher than the speed its traveling, it'll still exit. We see this often with certain soft-constructed lead core bullets, in certain scenarios.
Touching on Certain Terms Coined as it Relates to Terminal Ballistics and More Specifically to Petal-shedding Monolithics
Slip planes: relate to plasticity, or more specifically plastic deformation and how the copper reacts, deforms, and breaks away after impacting an animal. This is material science. It has a lot to do with how and why the nose/ogive of monos like Hammer, Apex, Cutting Edge, etc. come apart and break away from the shank. Differences in alloys affect this as well, like if the petals fracture into many pieces, a few large pieces, if the shank looks as though the petals chipped off, or if it's more of a clean break, etc.
Shaped Charge, Pop, Detonation: In reference to the nose coming apart and petals separating rapidly. As in, the nose essentially explodes upon/after impact. Since there's no actual explosive in the nose of these bullets, it's not the same as an actual shaped charge and the force created as the petals expand, peel back, and separate is just instant massive hydraulic force, which pushes the fluid and tissues outward (both forwards and perpendicular), producing a ton of outward force and pressure in the process. This would cause the ribcage to expand and would produce what looks like a "bubble", as has been coined, formed in the chest cavity.
So, with that said, the flat surface area created and left behind on the shank of such a bullet produces far more outwards (perpendicular) force than a pointed or completely rounded shape. And less contact surface means less overall opposing force to decrease the forward momentum, and it also decreases drag.
That said, a lead core bullet that sheds weight can produce a similar transfer/conversion of energy into a rapid pressure increase and hydraulic force, and the mushrooming and wider contact surface, even if more rounded, produces a lot of perpendicular force as well. It just tends to produce more opposing force and drag and loses momentum at a higher rate, and its penetration potential CAN be less.
So, by ensuring said lead core bullet has enough mass at the start, and retains enough mass, and also retains enough velocity after the initial impact and shedding of weight, it can and will still penetrate deeply and this is when we see exits. Having a rounded front/edges also has the effect of reducing some drag and lowering some of the opposing forces. The amount of wounding produced is still massive as well.
We see similar internal damage with both types of bullets too, in the form of puréed organs, from the hydraulic force blowing them apart, and overall wide wounding. This still is dependent on other things though. It's not always guaranteed with either type of bullet.
Mass tends to be a bigger factor with soft constructed lead core bullets, and more specifically: retained momentum. Getting the right amount and balance is definitely achievable though and putting it all together produces excellent results that have been well documented.
Bubble: In my opinion, this is a term that seems to be misunderstood. From my summation, it's a made-up term for what the bullet does as it enters, initiates the petal-shedding event, and then travels through an animal. Ironically, the same people that say energy dump and energy transfer isn't real use this term, so I've seen.
In reality, what this is, and what is occurring, it is indeed energy transfer and hydraulic force. The confusion of these terms seems to also come in part by things like that "Shooting Holes in Wounding Theories" paper, which there's been much discussion on about its legitimacy and the background of the writer and that no one seems to really know who this person really is and their actual experience, nor have I seen anyone figure out how to contact this person. So a separate reality and terminology has been created and in my opinion, that doesn't lineup with actual reality and actual science, at least not completely and as stated.
The term "bubble" has been used to ultimately refer to the huge rise in pressure inside the chest cavity from the bullet expanding very abruptly, then coming apart, and the extreme velocity itself.
What that actually is though is energy transfer and hydraulic force being produced as a result. Hydraulic force will literally apply pressure against what it is being exerted upon, therefore the outward pressure within the chest cavity will increase and cause the whole ribcage to expand. We see the same sort of thing with gel, as the whole block expands and shape-shifts upon impact. High speed camera footage shows us the hydraulic force and energy transfer much clearer. This effect, specifically the amount of energy transferred, and hydraulic force produced, is highly dependent upon bullet construction and how the bullet behaves upon impact. Not all perform the same and produce the same results.
Regarding Momentum in Reference to Terminal Ballistics:
Let's look at an example, comparing two relatively common bullets. One is a lead core bullet- the 215 grain Berger Hybrid, and the other is a mono- the 124gr Hammer Hunter.
So, comparing the 124gr Hammer to the 215gr Berger, mass-wise, we're talking a difference of .187 vs .324, in the form of sectional density. This helps us quantify and compare their mass more proportionally. We're also talking about a huge difference in construction and mechanics of how they work.
From what I've seen and experienced so far, bullets like Hammer varieties, Apex Outdoors Afterburners, LeHigh Defense Controlled Chaos, Cutting Edge varieties, etc. are all what I consider frangible in design. This is due to the fact they are purposely designed to shed weight and have the entire ogive section separate from the remaining shank upon/after impact- shedding away from the rest of the projectile.
So with that said, in theory they should also have a decent amount of starting mass since they're designed to shed a lot of weight, just like a soft/frangible lead core bullet. They need the retained mass in order to retain momentum. That will ensure they still have the ability or potential to produce adequate hydraulic force as they continue penetrating. If they lose too much momentum, and/or not create a wide enough surface area at the front of the remaining shank, penciling can or will still occur because the amount of hydraulic force produced will be greatly reduced. On the other hand, a lower amount of surface area would tend to allow the shank to not lose a ton of forward momentum and most frequently exit. This is compared to a mushroomed lead core or a softer alloy petal-shedding mono that still mushrooms after shedding the petals and creates with a wider surface area.
A soft/frangible lead core bullet, such as a heavy for caliber Berger, with plenty of mass to start with, will still shed a lot of weight in most scenarios, but it'll also still end up more mushroomed overall (wider overall surface area) than those listed monos. So that helps still produce wide wounding from hydraulic force even if they lose a lot of momentum as a result. They expend a ton of energy into the animal- in the form of hydraulic force- which creates the puree we tend to see from the lungs being destroyed.
The following formulas and equations give a basic look at some numbers regarding momentum and using a common scenario with the 124gr Hammer at a muzzle velocity (MV) of 4200fps and the 215gr Berger at a MV of 3200fps. The figures on amount of mass lost and amount of velocity lost is an estimation based on typical or advertised results, but obviously isn't a guarantee since getting those actual numbers will be pretty impossible to obtain. So, take this for whatever it may be worth. Maybe it's worth nothing to you, and I'm fine with that. I feel it's a good representative though to the real world. Also, the percentage of mass lost and velocity lost is in reference to after impact and after the main shedding of weight has occurred. The mass lost is the same for the Hammer at close and longer range because it seems that amount stays pretty consistent as long as the petals all completely separate and the bullet performs as designed. The Berger will vary based on impact velocity and impact resistance and that's why it's different. It'll obviously lose more mass with higher impact velocities and more resistance, hence why the numbers are what they are. This is simply to illustrate the point and get you thinking.
Momentum Formula:
P = MV
Momentum = mass X velocity
Hammer Hunter 124gr:
8.03 X 1280.16
Momentum = 10,280 Kilogram meters per second (Kgm/s)
Berger Hybrid 215gr:
13.93 X 975.36
Momentum = 12,611Kgm/s
*Note grains has been converted to grams and feet per second has been converted to meters per second.
Close Range Shot (MV):
Hammer:
Loses 40% mass = 4.82
50% velocity loss = 640.08
Momentum after weight shed and velocity loss = 4.82 X 640 = 3,085.19Kgm/s
Berger:
Loses 50% mass = 6.97
40% velocity loss = 585.22
Momentum after weight loss and velocity loss = 6.97 X 585.22 = 4,078.98Kgm/s
Longer Range Shot (600 yard adjusted impact velocity):
Hammer:
Loses 40% mass = 4.82
70% velocity loss (2522fps or 786.7m/s starting) = 236.01
Momentum lost after weight shed and velocity loss = 4.82 X 236.01 = 1,137.57Kgm/s
Berger:
Loses 30% mass = 9.75
60% velocity loss (2450fps or 747.76m/s starting) = 299.1
Momentum after weight shed and velocity loss = 9.75 X 299.1 = 2,916.23Kgm/s
So, if you look at simple cause and effect, and action/reaction, certain selling points with certain petal-shedding monos can be contradictory.
How can a bullet with less momentum and less mass penetrate completely, yet also produce the same or more hydraulic force (amount of wounding)? A huge amount of hydraulic force will create an opposing force to forward momentum. This is why even with more momentum a bullet like a Berger often doesn't exit. It sheds weight, but also still continues to mushroom. The fact that it still has more momentum but doesn't exit, yet retains a lot of mass, shows us it produced a ton of hydraulic force and that arrested the forward momentum rapidly.
Regarding Large Magnum Cartridges and/or Large Calibers vs Short Action and/or Smaller Caliber:
First off, I do use large magnums and will continue to do so because there are practical reasons to do so. I'm not too naive though to think you must use a magnum, 30cal minimum, and like a 200gr or heavier bullet with around 1500 or so foot pounds of energy, minimum, in order to be most successful. I use a lot of smaller cartridges and smaller calibers too, with the same success rate. Ultimately, the bullet is the hero, not the cartridge or even caliber size.
What cartridge is needed really depends. With certain bullets, certain distances needed, and certain game, sure a big magnum or large caliber might be what you want. But when you start tweaking things like exactly what bullet you're using (and in the right direction), you can still achieve desired results with much smaller cartridges, less powder, lighter bullets, lower recoil, etc. That's because you can create proper wounding and trauma still by using the right bullet. You can still do what is needed with less kinetic energy in the bullet because you're still untimely getting the actual amount of needed energy from the bullet and transferred directly into the wounding. That's what it's all about.
That's why shedding weight with bullets after impact works so well. There just needs to be enough starting mass so that there's also enough retained mass to keep the wounding going all the way through the vitals.
And thanks to the huge demand for high BC bullets nowadays, we have smaller caliber bullets, constructed with thin jackets and no bonding, that have plenty of mass (to get the increase in BC), plus cartridges coming out to get the most out of them with great efficiency.
The only people still having issues are those that do not understand bullet construction and terminal ballistics and are still picking the wrong bullet for the job or wrong combination with a particular cartridge and then placing it in a poor location on the animal for the particular scenario presented.
Now in regards to monos specifically, many have known for some time now, myself included, that the way to go is to actually have them shed weight, and not simply mushroom and retain as much weight as possible. We've known this since companies like Lehigh Defense and others first introduced their own copper bullets that shed weight (petals). We/they found that to truly get the best results in the form of productive energy transfer and hydraulic shock production, shedding weight is what needs to occur. Those initial designs and products though still weren't perfect and had other hurdles to get over to really get the most from them and to achieve the best results. Companies like Apex Outdoors, Hammer, Cutting Edge, etc. are evolutions of those initial designs.
That basic principle design was, or is, indeed good. The design to shed weight and still have a surface left that produces hydraulic force is crucial for best results. It allows for a rapid transfer of energy during the petal-shedding event, and without losing too much momentum as it still produces hydraulic forces and wide wounding.
What hurdles still remain though for this design and these companies are staying competitive with long range capabilities (low impact velocity performance and ability to retain as much velocity as possible), reliable and consistent expansion and full shedding of the petals without issues caused by necking over, tumbling, or not expanding at all, as well cost. We've seen certain companies do well, and others not so much. More companies pop up all the time too. Some are making great strides in those hurdles.
So, as these types of monos continue to evolve and improve, using them with large cartridges and calibers will be, and already is in many scenarios, unnecessary as well.
Aaron Peterson
See Part 1 here: https://www.longrangehunting.com/threads/what-goes-into-picking-the-right-bullet-part-1.376536/
