.223, 6mm, and 6.5 failures on big game

[35WhelenAI]

If there aren't lead frangible bullets, where does the smaller caliber frangible bullet need turn to? The legitimate claim against monos and other controlled expansion bullets is they don't create the wound channel at any caliber weight level that the same frangible lead bullets do. That's all I'm saying. If lead frangible bullets were gone tomorrow, smaller caliber success would have the same reality as they do now?

Don't think I haven't noticed that you are working toward more moderate dialogue the way you preface things, I appreciate it and I will do the same thing.

 

[Formidilosus]

If there aren't lead frangible bullets, where does the smaller caliber frangible bullet need turn to? The legitimate claim against monos and other controlled expansion bullets is they don't create the wound channel at any caliber weight level that the same frangible lead bullets do. That's all I'm saying. If lead frangible bullets were gone tomorrow, smaller caliber success would have the same reality as they do now?

Again- why won’t you read the source materials (threads and links)? I just told you have no lead small calibers work well.
You post in every one of these threads, and while eventually you modify what you state on one point, you just jump from one incorrect statement to another. Why won’t you just become educated about the subject? You obviously care about terminal ballistics: why don’t you actually learn factual terminal ballistics?

Don't think I haven't noticed that you are working toward more moderate dialogue the way you preface things, I appreciate it and I will do the same thing.

That’s because I think you are trying to have a good faith conversation now- however, your steadfast refusal to read and learn the subject is starting to call that into question.

 

[35WhelenAI]

The premise of smaller caliber bullets is the frangible element of expanding, coming apart and creating the wound channel. Take away the rapid expansion and bullet fragments creating a wound channel, it's a different ball game. That's not part of terminal ballistics understanding, education or good faith discussion, with respect?

Can a small caliber shooting controlled expansion copper (as was my premise for the last few posts, if lead is gone tomorrow...) destroy tissue to make them preferable over larger calibers shooting the same constructed bullet . From my previous post: If lead frangible bullets were gone tomorrow, smaller caliber success would have the same reality as they do now?

 

[RockAndSage]

The premise of smaller caliber bullets is the frangible element of expanding, coming apart and creating the wound channel.

@Formidilosus , maybe I can ask a question that might help here, that I'm also interested in knowing more about:

If you had to use Barnes bullets or other non-frangible monos in a .223 going after deer, what would they be and what would your maximum distance be to ensure they expanded properly?

How would this change if it were .22 Creedmoor?

 

[PLhunter]

I think a lot of the consternation comes from hunting practices and is in some ways generational. 30 years ago nobody knew the exact range. People shot offhand much much much more often than now. Generally shooting less accurate rifles. The limiting factor for accuracy and accuracy potential were different than now. Timing the trigger squeeze with an unsteady shooting position was a big factor in skill. Recoil management and recoils limitation on accuracy were important but not as large of a percentage of field accuracy as they are now. Moving shots were far more common and range was an educated guess anyway. So people took more moving shots and more off angle shots as a result. Flat shooting mega magnums with huge penetration and kill zones were in some ways legitimately better for those situations. Shooting from the knee at a deer running 300 something yards away recoil was less a percentage of issue making a hit than in todays situations. I wouldn’t expect and didn’t get as good of results in those hunting situations as my dad did when he switched to a 300 mag and I had my 25-06. So I see how people hold onto those views and depending on hunting practices still see the value in the bigger calibers.

Now recoil management and the end stage of the shooting process make up a massive percentage of field accuracy potential when prone shots with tripod and rear support are the norm. The benefits of lower recoil are greater than ever. It’s just a different game and the pro/con list is being re-weighted accordingly.

 

[35WhelenAI]

@PLhunter, that's a good synopsis of how things have evolved. A theme in your post is recoil management then and now, and how much of field shooting it is / was. Beyond bullet performance, recoil is a large part of the total shooting system and hunter success with smaller calibers.

 

[Chris_in_Idaho]

It is enough to say “almost all calibers kill very well, I just happen to like big calibers”. That’s it. That’s all there is to it.

This isn't specifically directed at 35WAI, but I have noticed a particular character flaw feature common among participants of every hobby I interact with. "If I like X, then Y has to be bad."

It's the same with muscle cars, electric guitars, anything.

"I love big blocks, so LS engines have to be bad..."

"I love Les Pauls, so Strats and Telecasters have to be bad..."

"I love big classic hunting cartridges, so small ones have to be bad..."

There's also an emotional need for their preference to be validated.

"I need small cartridges to be inferior because I have an emotional need for my big cartridges to be superior, so I have to come up with something mine does that yours can't..."

which comes out as some fantastical scenario like:

"when you have to shoot at some magical angle through 7 feet of muscle and super tough bones you'll wish you had a big caliber like me..."
or
"if there's a charging Grizzly you'll sure wish for that extra KNOCK DOWN..."
or
"mArGiN fOr ErRoR..."

People need to realize that it's ok to have preferences, but quit needing everything else to be inferior.

What is objectively shown to work, works. That can be small caliber with long/soft bullets, or big caliber with most any bullets. If YOU can accurately deliver it at an acceptable impact velocity, rock on.

I enjoy them all. I enjoy my .223 because it's cheap and quiet and comfortable to shoot. I enjoy(ed) my .375 because of its history and I personally think big power is fun, be it guns or v8s or guitar amps.

I have enjoyed hunting with both. I understand the abilities of both.

 

[Rich M]

Bigger bullets create more recoil which leads to worse shot placement.

Worse shot placement leads to needing a larger wound channel to hit something vital.

Learn how to shoot better.

Tired of this, I’m a wus s e cuse for not being able to shoot.

Fwiw i have a bad flinch cause dad had a 10@# kid shooting 30-06 or stay home. Still can shoot an inch at 250 w 30-06. Hate that thing but it drops em where they stand and that matters.

 

[35WhelenAI]

We've all had the bigger is better mindset. If you take a look at my line of questions recently, it's not about bigger is better. I have said what if the lead frangible bullet that makes up a big part of the capability of the smaller rounds was gone. The recoil advantage remains. As was asked by @RockAndSage above what's going to be the ranging capabilities of non-lead bullets as they will be called into question, justifiably so, because of velocity requirements at impact, they pencil through, etc.

For @Formidilosus from the other .223 thread: Do you still prefer Cutting Edge as a mono or an LRX in certain calibers, if the choice was made for you?

 

[Chris_in_Idaho]

I think the response from a few posts back was that not all frangible bullets have to be lead, and likewise not all non-lead bullets have to be monos.

Form mentioned some sintered tungsten bullets that I hadn't heard of but sound intriguing.

 

[35WhelenAI]

I think the response from a few posts back was that not all frangible bullets have to be lead, and likewise not all non-lead bullets have to be monos.

Form mentioned some sintered tungsten bullets that I hadn't heard of but sound intriguing.

DRT Technology – DRT Ammo

drtammo.com

Published velocities look on the low side for most of the cartridges. Somebody else take a look and verify?

 

[atmat]

Learn how to shoot better.

Fwiw i have a bad flinch

Oh, the irony.

 

[Southern Lights]

I think the response from a few posts back was that not all frangible bullets have to be lead, and likewise not all non-lead bullets have to be monos.

Form mentioned some sintered tungsten bullets that I hadn't heard of but sound intriguing.

Been looking at them and ones that use tin (Norma Evostrike). Had mates try them and they work, but make a huge mess of powdered metal sprayed into the animal. Again a lot of meat damage like fragmenting lead. I don't want to eat lead, but large quantities of tungsten and tin aren't high on my list either.

There is a lot of research going on now with lead-free and I suspect lead will go the way of the Dodo in many hunting jurisdictions in the next 5-10 years. I have been hunting with fragmenting lead match bullets since the late 2000s and they work well, but waste tons of meat. I won't eat anything I think is contaminated out of an abundance of caution due to the lead particles. I am transitioning away from them now and just use monos as I got sick of thinking about it.

 

[PLhunter]

Been looking at them and ones that use tin (Norma Evostrike). Had mates try them and they work, but make a huge mess of powdered metal sprayed into the animal. Again a lot of meat damage like fragmenting lead. I don't want to eat lead, but large quantities of tungsten and tin aren't high on my list either.

There is a lot of research going on now with lead-free and I suspect lead will go the way of the Dodo in many hunting jurisdictions in the next 5-10 years. I have been hunting with fragmenting lead match bullets since the late 2000s and they work well, but waste tons of meat. I won't eat anything I think is contaminated out of an abundance of caution due to the lead particles. I am transitioning away from them now and just use monos as I got sick of thinking about it.

I voluntarily switched and have a lot of experience using non lead bullets. They do work fine. The biggest challenges are bc and velocity. Some like the now defunct badlands do very well on bc but terminal performance while okay isn’t emphatic. The DRT offerings look great for being emphatic but are not in stock and the bc for several calibers is awful. The monos I’ve used most I can’t imagine working emphatically with extreme caliber to game size ratio. Say .224 on elk. Issue is the mass of the pedals breaking off seems too small to get much travel and the flat nosed shank having a smaller tear surface. It’ll do it better than a bow but not better than a larger caliber. That said I’d have zero reservations using a 6.5 mono of that design on an elk. I’ve seen pedal fragments travel plenty far enough to have a large disruption area and some good wound channels.

Of the ones I haven’t tried that I think a small caliber would work best with I’d say the cutting edge Maximus line is intriguing. I haven’t tried apex but they seem very similar to badlands. Badlands was trying, albeit often unsuccessfully, to keep the bullet together, like Barnes. Apex has similar profiles as badlands but intends to break apart. Not sure if the intention vs lack of intention makes any real world difference. I’ve used hammers but the bc on those has been so odd and variable rifle to rifle. But have zero complaints regarding terminal performance.

 

[Southern Lights]

I voluntarily switched and have a lot of experience using non lead bullets. They do work fine. The biggest challenges are bc and velocity. Some like the now defunct badlands do very well on bc but terminal performance while okay isn’t emphatic. The DRT offerings look great for being emphatic but are not in stock and the bc for several calibers is awful. The monos I’ve used most I can’t imagine working emphatically with extreme caliber to game size ratio. Say .224 on elk. Issue is the mass of the pedals breaking off seems too small to get much travel and the flat nosed shank having a smaller tear surface. It’ll do it better than a bow but not better than a larger caliber. That said I’d have zero reservations using a 6.5 mono of that design on an elk. I’ve seen pedal fragments travel plenty far enough to have a large disruption area and some good wound channels.

Of the ones I haven’t tried that I think a small caliber would work best with I’d say the cutting edge Maximus line is intriguing. I haven’t tried apex but they seem very similar to badlands. Badlands was trying, albeit often unsuccessfully, to keep the bullet together, like Barnes. Apex has similar profiles as badlands but intends to break apart. Not sure if the intention vs lack of intention makes any real world difference. I’ve used hammers but the bc on those has been so odd and variable rifle to rifle. But have zero complaints regarding terminal performance.

I have been meaning to start a thread on my transition to copper bullets as a kind of journal. I have tried the Sako Blade in 6.5 creedmoor only so far and it was pretty anemic. Animal went down, but not like I'd want. My cut-off for good performance is animal drops within 30 yards which it just barely did. This is a sample size of one though.

There are some other bullet makers in Europe (Hasler Bullets) and Australia (Outer Edge) I would like to try if I can get them. Hammers look interesting, but extremely expensive to import here.

I'm working on some hypotheses for testing. I shoot a lot of 223, but consider it a 200y and in caliber and try to neck/head shots. For monos I would stick to that hard and I'm not sure I'd do it on anything larger than fallow to have a good quick kill. I think 223 in monos is going to be marginal in many cases and I'd want to use something with more energy on impact to open the bullet and more material to maintain the shank/weight.

I am actually thinking my 270 has all the attributes for a great mono metal caliber: Shoots light bullets really fast. I have a 129 LRX load shooting about 3100fps and 110TTSX just over 3300. Seems like a good place to be for monos with a 2200 fps cut off for 2X expansion. That makes them 400y and in rounds which is plenty. I'll use them in the next couple weeks on a cull hunt as well.

It would be funny to see the 270 come back into vogue if copper becomes the go-to. I can feel the ghost of Jack O'Connor smiling down on the turn of events.

 

[HandgunHTR]

Can a small caliber shooting controlled expansion copper (as was my premise for the last few posts, if lead is gone tomorrow...) destroy tissue to make them preferable over larger calibers shooting the same constructed bullet . From my previous post: If lead frangible bullets were gone tomorrow, smaller caliber success would have the same reality as they do now?

There are some bullets that are showing promise as they are designed to shed petals and create secondary wound channels (Hammer), are made up of sintered metal powder (DRT) that, again, fragment and create good secondary wound channels, or those that are designed to open significantly (greater than 2X diameter) at lower velocities (Maker, CBB, Controlled Chaos). A caveat on the last group: All of them are a bit different in regards to opening velocity and if they hold together. I much prefer if they come apart, but most who shoot monos don't want that, so makers that have had that have actually gone the opposite direction and either changed their bullets to a harder alloy, or lessened the skiving so as to retard opening.
Another very effective method, as Form has pointed out is to do something similar to the nose-ring on the DTAC. This causes the tip of the bullet to break off upon entry and the bullet will yaw and tumble through the animal, which causes significant damage.
All that being said, any of those mentioned above most likely would not make them "better" than their larger caliber counterparts (assuming we are talking about using the same exact bullet), just like a 75 grain ELDM out of a .22 caliber rifle won't make a bigger wound channel than a 212 grain ELDM out of a 30 caliber rifle. However, the reasoning for using a smaller one will be the same as it is now: lower recoil and lower cost, which leads to more practice, while still maintaining a very effective killing efficiency.

 

[WTFJohn]

Learn how to shoot better.

Tired of this, I’m a wus s e cuse for not being able to shoot.

Fwiw i have a bad flinch cause dad had a 10@# kid shooting 30-06 or stay home. Still can shoot an inch at 250 w 30-06. Hate that thing but it drops em where they stand and that matters.

I never said I shot larger calibers/magnums poorly. I said I shoot lighter recoiling rifles better. Just the same as pistols and shotguns.

FWIW, saying things like "I have a bad flinch but hold it in an inch at 250" tells me more about how much you (don't) shoot than anything else.

Got any bullet failures to add to the large caliber thread? Or just more nonsense like the above to clutter up this thread?

 

[Article 4]

So much in this thread and I am a believer that there are different kinds of bullets and recommendations from manufacturers on best use of the bullets for a reason.

I wont ever have personal pictures of small bullet success on larger game. Conversely, cannot say I have ever had a small bullet fail on big game (elk and the like) since I wont use them. Period dot. Small bullets belong on small game.

Big bullets can fail too however I have never personally had one fail nor have I witnessed anyone that I hunt with have one fail. So taking a picture has been less important since the animal was under my knife.

If I have an elk tag, I shoot the biggest bullet I can as fast as I can. Usually a minimum of 175 grains or larger.

 

[Chris_in_Idaho]

I wont use them. Period dot.

Which is why you will never actually know anything about them. Period dot.

 

[Article 4]

Which is why you will never actually know anything about them. Period dot.

Actually don't want to - wont need to

Proud of it too - period dot