Can you tell me how that variability plays out in the testing? Are they not opening, not penetrating, minimal stretch and damage, inconsistent?
They are inconsistent. It’s always failing to upset or fragment.
Sometimes they expand almost normally, sometimes they penetrate 4-5” and then tumble and fragment, sometimes they penetrate 10-12” without fragmenting, and sometimes they behave optimally by tumbling within 2-3” and fragmenting violently.
I am a product of the generation that was taught that you don't use match bullets for game. When I first started reading of people using match bullets for game, my default position was that they were nuts. I am a skeptic by nature.
They problem with things like “no match bullets for game” line of thinking, is that it’s based on nothing. It’s a meaningless stance. “Match” is a marketing term and nothing else as there are no standards for that designation.
What a company labels a projectile as, has generally nothing to do with what that bullet will do in tissue. There are match bullets that are poor performers in tissue, there game bullets that are poor performers in tissue, there match bullets that produce lackluster precision, there are game bullets that produce excellent precision, and there are match bullets that produce excellent and ideal tissue disruption.
But then as more data points started pouring in (Think the Scenar thread on 24HCF) I changed my mind. Some match bullets work great on game. Things like this from Sierra make me scratch my head still:
"While they are recognized around the world for record-setting accuracy, MatchKing® and Tipped MatchKing® bullets are not recommended for most hunting applications."
Does Sierra know something that you don't or vice versa?
Others have addressed why a company might choose to not advertise a bullets use in hunting. I can say with near certainty that there is no one that has seen more big game killed with TMK’s than I
As I read through various forums these days, it seems many people start working up hunting loads with match bullets, then asking others what kind of performance others are having on game with that bullet. That seems pretty backwards to me, but it's very common. Are there really that many people that shoot game at distances where the BC advantages of match bullets come into play? An internet fad for the most part?
It’s an internet and advertising game. I wouldn’t call it a fad as we have been pushing and stretching the limits of weapons since their inception. There are a couple of main issues-
1). Long range shooting/taking animals at longer ranges while hunting is here to stay. The greatest problem is that while the advancements in optics, rangefinders, bullets, and ballistic apps to make long range shooting extremely predictable and attainable- the consummate increase in shooting knowledge, skill, and practice has not. In short-
hunters don’t shoot. And most seem proud of that fact.
2). Manufacturers, gun writers, and advertising have misinterpreted, were totally ignorant about, or outright lied about bullet performance in tissue and “killing” animals. This has resulted in a complete system built around “killing power” that is totally backwards of reality.
3) Heavy for caliber, rapidly fragmenting match bullets create the biggest wound channels of any type of projectile. This isn’t because they’re “match”, it’s because they’re the only projectiles in common usage that didn’t go down the “max retained weight, picture perfect mushroom” path.
There is no downside to a high BC, rapidly upsetting, precise bullet in tissue provided that minimum required penetration depth is achieved.
Just the stuff that runs through the mind of a skeptic.
You should be. Everyone should be. We as a consumer group should be demanding that manufactures prove that their products work correctly, and we should be challenging what is written by anyone with healthy skepticism until sufficient evidence has been provided.
