I'm not saying that your advice to use a more traditional bullet at the ranges the op stated may typically give him more favorable results.
But your first paragraph in that reply stated "in a nutshell" that shots must be broadside to be favorable with a frangible bullet.
Maybe the typical frangible bullet user waits for a broadside because the distance is longer and they want more kill zone exposued?
And it has nothing to do with a belief the bullet will not reach vital organs.
Also Correct every bullet design has strengths and weaknesses, but implying a bullet is a poor choice based on what you read is just spreading rumors.
Stating the facts you've seen with bullets you have used i believe is a much better way to lead people to a choice.
I may make my choices based on what I've read but I reserve my advice to things I have only seen and used first hand.
I'm not saying your rite or wrong, I just think things get twisted for good and bad when second hand accounts get re told and you don't have any possible way to know the details.
I'm with you on most of what you said, there's no question second hand details even if they are very detailed accounts, may be missing something. I won't question the intention of folks posting up the results here in the forum, I think there's a brotherhood within hunting and the bulk of it can be considered as reliable information. I take what you are posting as an honest assessment, and I do the same for other accounts.
I've been fortunate to harvest quite a few animals. Pronghorn, deer and elk. I have seen
many first hand kills in the field in addition to my dozen+ elk, many deer (muleys and whitetails) and couple handful of pronghorn. There's an easy/obvious line to draw for me between regular cup and core bullets/long range more frangible bullets in comparison to controlled expansion bullets.
If shooting at 350 yds, the frangible bullets that perform well at extended long range (on broadside shots I might add, I don't know hunters that would take a quartering shot on an elk with most cartridges at 700 yards) don't have an advantage at 350 or even to 400 yds. It's not 'til really long range that ballistic coefficient comes into play and that is where the realm of bullets that can expand excessively at shorter range take over.
I'm taking this in the context of this is not the long range forum and it's stated 350 yd is the outer limit of what the OP will shoot at.
Again, with respect, I can say from my experience, controlled expansion and mono bullets will serve the OP at his stated range in all circumstances better than the more frangible long range bullets.
For the Partition, it's a hard one to beat at the range the OP is talking about. With the number of animals I have seen harvested with the Partition, it led to a lot of on-side meat damage if it wasn't just between the ribs. Therefore I have migrated to the monos as I hunt similar ranges as the OP.
I know a lot of folks would be surprised how a 200 grain TTSX out of a 35 Whelen AI started at 2925 FPS out of a 25" bbl or 180 grain Barnes XBT from a 300 Win Mag opens up on an average size mule deer with a straight broadside presentation, and how well it exits a quartering on or quartering away elk at distances from 100 yards to 350 yds, based on experience. I never wonder or debate in my mind whether the bullet is up for a task of any of those shots. I don't think that can be said for what folks say about the more frangible long-range bullets.