Berger Hybrids Hunter-Anybody have experience shooting Berger Hybrid Hunter for elk.

[WeiserBucks]

Because the hunting community spent 150+ years dealing with inconsistent terminal ballistic performance, resulting in wounded animals, lost game a dead hunters of dangerous game.


This has all been done before…there are defined standards for internal, external, and terminal ballistics. That last one is the most critical…and cup/core bullets are garbage at it outside ideal circumstances.


Look at why bullets like the Nosler Partition were invented prior to bonding technology. Look at why so many African animals get shot by solids.

DOD just spent billions reinventing the wheel with M855A1 and came to the same conclusions on terminal ballistics that everyone already knew- You need barrier blind straight line penetration of xyz inches, creating an entrance and exit wound that will depressurise the cardiovascular system and lead to lung/heart failure.

Cup and Core bullets shatter…you can’t count on consistent straight line penetration and exit wounds. You lose them to barriers like heavy bone or angled shots requiring deep penetration.

In today’s world, there is no reason for a bullet to lose more than 10% of its weight…none.

Using a cup and core bullet is intentionally handicapping yourself. It’s just illogical.

How many big game animals have you personally shot with Berger bullets? I'm at a couple dozen and they work great for me. I've tried almost every new wizz bang super duper critter wrecker bullet available in the last 25 years, bonded, mono ect.

Bergers are better for what I expect a bullet to do, penetrate enough and destroy vital organs.

 

[35WhelenAI]

How many big game animals have you personally shot with Berger bullets? I'm at a couple dozen and they work great for me. I've tried almost every new wizz bang super duper critter wrecker bullet available in the last 25 years, bonded, mono ect.

Bergers are better for what I expect a bullet to do, penetrate enough and destroy vital organs.

Maybe it was shared already, how many quartering shots from the front or rear have you taken with the Berger bullets at normal hunting ranges? Remember this thread is about 350 yard shots as per the OP.

I believe to have adequately documented one and done harvests with recovered bullets that traversed 4' of the best resistance an elk has to offer within the OP's parameters. They perform just as well on broadside shots as the frangible grenades on mule deer as they do on elk at the OP's stated range.

The picture of the bullet in post #24 worked fine for a broadside shot. Is that acceptable bullet performance on a quartering shot? I personally won't put myself or a live animal in that situation. Nothing wrong with the bullet for that situation, however not the best choice for all circumstances within the OP's parameters.

Post #32, does it not show logical bullet selection with respect to humane harvest from a quartering angle at the range the OP is talking about? Post #35, a 230 at 3100 fps is the performance to illustrate for someone that wants to shoot within 350 yds, when it means losing a front shoulder of a deer, broadside? Do that on an elk you're talking 25+ pounds of shoulder meat gone.

It's outside the scope of the OP's question using this logic to offer these suggestions based on his parameters

OP, pick another bullet than the one mentioned in the title of this thread. You can see 3 pages of posts. Make your best logical conclusion about the type of bullet/construction that will give the best likelihood within your stated parameters for the desired outcome in all circumstances.

 

[Mattahall15]

Anchored a mountain goat at 403 yards with them. Should make light work of an elk with proper shot placement.

 

[35WhelenAI]

My experience with Berger bullets says they work just fine, I’ve taken many deer and elk, close range, longe range and inbetween, i have never has a single issue, never.

Super tag, have you taken elk at quartering angles where the bullet needs to go through a lot of animal? I ask honestly because I want to learn more about what other folks are doing on the type of shots that I have successfully taken when needed over my hunting years.

 

[Super tag]

Yes, I shoot the 180gr Hybrid in 7mm LRM, my Elk rifle, I’ve taken quartering shots of variable degrees as well as broadside shots. I find the same results as one of the previous posts showing a significant core upon recovery.
The very first time I used them I was nervous because I had read some negatives, when I recovered the slug, from a quartering front shoulder shot, the core was at least 60% intact, the bullet went through the front shoulder, through the animal and stuck just before exiting the opposite side. Totally different results from what I had read.
I find them to be very effective.
My deer hunting rifle is a 7mm, I shoot the 168gr VLD hunting, last year 410 yard quartering to shot, same results. I’ve never had any issues at all. I also might add that I haven’t experienced the massive wound channel, for whatever reason, with either bullet I use.
I took a really long shot on a big buck a few years back, 915 yards, it was the only shot I had after 3 days of hunting this buck, the bullet went straight through the heart area, took it out completely, recovered the slug stuck to the hide. I’ve seen photos of some nast damage, maybe they’re close shots? I tend to shoot mostly between 400 and 600 yards for whatever reason, the Berger work very well for me. And like I said, they’re easily the most accurate in my rifles. No question.

 

[Seeknelk]

OP...any number of bullets will work awesome.
While I love the 215 Berger out of the 300, I also shoot and hunt and longer ranges. If your limiting your ranges to 350 yards then you may consider driving a lighter hammer hunter at warp speed to increase your MPBR and simplify life. B.C won't really play a big role in 99.9 percent of shots under 350.
I'm experimenting with the 124 hammer hunter in my 300 prc at 3700 fps. I have not killed with them yet. Other have astounding kills on water buffalo , testing them down under. I don't remember the results of the test completely but they shot plenty of big buffs with a variety of hammers. 181, 166, and 124 I know for sure. And the 124 was doing something different, dropping them with more authority than the heavier ones. Loading for them is a bit different. Can find lots of good info on loading them at hammers forum.
Again, I have no personal kills with them yet.
Other than hammers, the bergers 185-215, nosler partition and accubond, and many others will all kill.

 

[QuackAttack]

For a cup and core bullet, the Nosler Acubond is hard to beat and is generally very accurate.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Yes, I shoot the 180gr Hybrid in 7mm LRM, my Elk rifle, I’ve taken quartering shots of variable degrees as well as broadside shots. I find the same results as one of the previous posts showing a significant core upon recovery.
The very first time I used them I was nervous because I had read some negatives, when I recovered the slug, from a quartering front shoulder shot, the core was at least 60% intact, the bullet went through the front shoulder, through the animal and stuck just before exiting the opposite side. Totally different results from what I had read.
I find them to be very effective.
My deer hunting rifle is a 7mm, I shoot the 168gr VLD hunting, last year 410 yard quartering to shot, same results. I’ve never had any issues at all. I also might add that I haven’t experienced the massive wound channel, for whatever reason, with either bullet I use.
I took a really long shot on a big buck a few years back, 915 yards, it was the only shot I had after 3 days of hunting this buck, the bullet went straight through the heart area, took it out completely, recovered the slug stuck to the hide. I’ve seen photos of some nast damage, maybe they’re close shots? I tend to shoot mostly between 400 and 600 yards for whatever reason, the Berger work very well for me. And like I said, they’re easily the most accurate in my rifles. No question.

Thanks for the info on the range you are shooting. Longer distance is a good equalizer where higher bc is important and bullet speed is lower for more consistent performance on varying shot presentations.

 

[Aviator]

For what your doing the 180-200 grain Accubond would work just fine.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Agree QuackAttack and Aviator, on the Accubond. High bc and bullet integrity.

 

[Slick8]

For what your doing the 180-200 grain Accubond would work just fine.

Although cup and core the accubond is a bonded bullet and retains a large amount of weight.

As does the swift scirocco hold together really well. I have a 180 grain shot from a 300 rum years ago into a hog at 50 yards. This was shot at close range just to test the bullet. It broke....no shattered both shoulder leg bones and was under the armor shield the the 250 pound boar. For those who have never shot a large hog they have a protective shield on their shoulders that will usually catch copper solids. That bullet weighed 112 grains which I call impressive given the velocity and heavy bone it went through.

Both great bullets and faily accurate but suffering in bc's.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[QuackAttack]

As an alternative to the Nosler (not that there’s anything wrong with it), Swift has updated their Scircoco and it’s a very similar bullet to the Nosler, but with a heavier jacket and better weight retention. Exception bullets, very well made.

https://www.swiftbullets.com/pages/bullets#scirocco

 

[Huntnnw]

Used 230Bergers the first time this year on elk. Wife shot a bull at 277 yards never moved

 

[deltadukman]

I shoot Bergers and Barnes TSX on big bodied whitetails out of a 300wm. Under 400 yards, I am using a Barnes TSX every time. Over that, I'll shoot the Bergers.

 

[Formidilosus]

Super tag, have you taken elk at quartering angles where the bullet needs to go through a lot of animal? I ask honestly because I want to learn more about what other folks are doing on the type of shots that I have successfully taken when needed over my hunting years.

Multiple people, in multiple threads have answered you on the quartering/bone shots with Bergers and match bullets. Why is it that you continue to argue a stance for which you zero experience? Not being argumentative- legitimately asking.

You continually state that these bullets won’t go through bone, or insinuate that they won’t, when others have repeatedly said and show that they do. Your stance is factually not correct. Moreover, the reason that some would choose heavy fragmenting match bullets for closer range shots is because they kill better: that is, they kill faster. Again, you have no experience to say one way or the other, yet you do. Why?

 

[Formidilosus]

Because the hunting community spent 150+ years dealing with inconsistent terminal ballistic performance, resulting in wounded animals, lost game a dead hunters of dangerous game.

This is not the result of non bonded bullets, but the result of bullets not being tested to insure they perform adequately.

This has all been done before…there are defined standards for internal, external, and terminal ballistics. That last one is the most critical…and cup/core bullets are garbage at it outside ideal circumstances.

That’s correct, except for the last sentence.

Look at why bullets like the Nosler Partition were invented prior to bonding technology. Look at why so many African animals get shot by solids.

DOD just spent billions reinventing the wheel with M855A1 and came to the same conclusions on terminal ballistics that everyone already knew- You need barrier blind straight line penetration of xyz inches, creating an entrance and exit wound that will depressurise the cardiovascular system and lead to lung/heart failure.

Interesting that you bring M855A1 and DOD terminal ballistics up for several reasons. First, M855A1 losses significant weight in tissue- a little over 60% in fact. Second, it 100% was not designed with tissue performance as a metric, instead that was a happy coincidence. Third, exit wounds are not a requirement or even a consideration; only a minimum of 12” of penetration. Fourth, the bullet that resulted from all that terminal ballistics testing and research, and was actually designed specifically with terminal ballistics as the priority function, that was (and is) issued and used with excellent performance was and is an unbonded, partially fragmenting projectile. Fifth, the most terminally destructive .224 projectile that passes those ballistics standards is a heavy, fragmenting, tipped cup and core bullet; actually in every caliber the most destructive projectile- that is the one that causes the largest wounds, are heavy tipped fragmenting projectiles.

Cup and Core bullets shatter…you can’t count on consistent straight line penetration and exit wounds. You lose them to barriers like heavy bone or angled shots requiring deep penetration.

Incorrect. It is quite easy and common for cup and core bullets to give straight line penetration including through barriers. Not all of them, but there are plenty.

In today’s world, there is no reason for a bullet to lose more than 10% of its weight…none.

Using a cup and core bullet is intentionally handicapping yourself. It’s just illogical.

The reason is because they create massively larger wound channels. That directly correlates to animals that travel less distance after the shot, and go down faster.

 

[WeiserBucks]

This is not the result of non bonded bullets, but the result of bullets not being tested to insure the perform adequately.




That’s correct, except for the last sentence.





Interesting that you bring M855A1 and DOD terminal ballistics up for several reasons. First, M855A1 losses significant weight in tissue- a little over 60% in fact. Second, it 100% was not designed with tissue performance as a metric, instead that was a happy coincidence. Third, exit wounds are not a requirement or even a consideration; only a minimum of 12” of penetration. Fourth, the bullet that resulted from all that terminal ballistics testing and research, and was actually designed specifically with terminal ballistics as the priority function, that was (and is) issued and used with excellent performance was and is an unbonded, partially fragmenting projectile. Fifth, the most terminally destructive .224 projectile that passes those ballistics standards is a heavy, fragmenting, tipped cup and core bullet; actually in every caliber the most destructive projectile- that is the one that causes the largest wounds, are heavy tipped fragmenting projectiles.




Incorrect. It is quite easy and common for cup and core bullets to give straight line penetration including through barriers. Not all of them, but there are plenty.





The reason is because they create massively larger wound channels. That directly correlates to animals that travel less distance after the shot, and go down faster.

FINALLY!!! Form and I agree 100% on something.

 

[35WhelenAI]

That's a nice part about a free country, folks can shoot the bullets they want at whatever range they want and debate back and forth the benefits and drawbacks to each.

 

[QuackAttack]

This is not the result of non bonded bullets, but the result of bullets not being tested to insure they perform adequately.




That’s correct, except for the last sentence.





Interesting that you bring M855A1 and DOD terminal ballistics up for several reasons. First, M855A1 losses significant weight in tissue- a little over 60% in fact. Second, it 100% was not designed with tissue performance as a metric, instead that was a happy coincidence. Third, exit wounds are not a requirement or even a consideration; only a minimum of 12” of penetration. Fourth, the bullet that resulted from all that terminal ballistics testing and research, and was actually designed specifically with terminal ballistics as the priority function, that was (and is) issued and used with excellent performance was and is an unbonded, partially fragmenting projectile. Fifth, the most terminally destructive .224 projectile that passes those ballistics standards is a heavy, fragmenting, tipped cup and core bullet; actually in every caliber the most destructive projectile- that is the one that causes the largest wounds, are heavy tipped fragmenting projectiles.




Incorrect. It is quite easy and common for cup and core bullets to give straight line penetration including through barriers. Not all of them, but there are plenty.





The reason is because they create massively larger wound channels. That directly correlates to animals that travel less distance after the shot, and go down faster.

Respectfully, most of what you wrote is simply incorrect.

There were multiple programs inside and outside DOD with the purpose of addressing M855 Ball deficits. The issues included lead/non toxic components, poor terminal performance, poor barrier performance, lack of predictable flight path on the far side of barriers (specifically automobile windshield glass), low accuracy standards, and so on. Terminal performance was absolutely a critical goal and one specifically touted by the program manager. Different groups arrived at various conclusions, SOST (a trophy bonded bear claw that became the FBI duty load), Brown Tip (a Barnes x that became the round of choice for JSOC), and 855A1 that frankly sucked but was the most well funded and longest running program of record. Without going into nerdy detail, small arms ammo inside DOD was a disaster for much of the GWOT with green tip being a poor performer all around.

The optimal round resulting from those programs is Brown Tip Optimised and the guys with unlimited budgets chose it over all others. It is a Barnes X with modified profile. OBL got one in the face.

The SOST round that the Marines liked was unbonded and would frag the front core. They went with an unbonded bullet to save costs, not because it was superior. It met performance goals unbonded and they had already done multiple mods to the design in order to try and adj the BC to match their existing reticles and optical systems. The FBI modified it further, going with a bonded version at a lower velocity as their duty load. It’s a solid performer but not precision rifle accurate.

MK262 has been phased out as the rifle program that drove it ended. The 5.56 precision rifle is gone and has been.

Ref other points- Exit wounds are absolutely a needed part of terminal performance. Blood trails…the proverbial sucking chest wound leading to lung collapse, and rapid incapacitation of game animals is going to happen more reliably and faster with a big exit wound. With modern bullets, an exit wound should be a given. There is no excuse for a bullet failing to exit and enable blood/air loss/entry. There is no advantage to the lack of an exit wound. It’s silly to say exit wounds aren’t needed…they blatantly are and anyone that’s tried to stop bleeding in real life can testify to it. I’ve done it and it’s a nightmare when you have nothing but air to pack against.


When you go into wound channels, size is relative and expanding bullets of the same caliber and weight will generally produce similar diameter wound tracts. Fragments are secondary projectiles and usually lack sufficient mass/energy to penetrate more that 2-3 inches from the point where they separated from the main projectile. That’s not good…but it’s not all bad depending on how much tissue the round has to penetrate before reaching vital organs.


That’s really the crux of the issue- Any modern bullet is deadly under ideal conditions. Bullets rapidly fall apart when you have to punch them through heavy bone like a moose shoulder or similar. That’s where bonded or mono bullets shine…when things are less than perfect. An unbonded cup and core bullet is going to get destroyed on a frontal quartering shot through the shoulder on a large heavy animal. Bone and a 18+ inch penetration requirement….no bueno.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Respectfully, most of what you wrote is simply incorrect.

There were multiple programs inside and outside DOD with the purpose of addressing M855 Ball deficits. The issues included lead/non toxic components, poor terminal performance, poor barrier performance, lack of predictable flight path on the far side of barriers (specifically automobile windshield glass), low accuracy standards, and so on. Terminal performance was absolutely a critical goal and one specifically touted by the program manager. Different groups arrived at various conclusions, SOST (a trophy bonded bear claw that became the FBI duty load), Brown Tip (a Barnes x that became the round of choice for JSOC), and 855A1 that frankly sucked but was the most well funded and longest running program of record. Without going into nerdy detail, small arms ammo inside DOD was a disaster for much of the GWOT with green tip being a poor performer all around.

The optimal round resulting from those programs is Brown Tip Optimised and the guys with unlimited budgets chose it over all others. It is a Barnes X with modified profile. OBL got one in the face.

The SOST round that the Marines liked was unbonded and would frag the front core. They went with an unbonded bullet to save costs, not because it was superior. It met performance goals unbonded and they had already done multiple mods to the design in order to try and adj the BC to match their existing reticles and optical systems. The FBI modified it further, going with a bonded version at a lower velocity as their duty load. It’s a solid performer but not precision rifle accurate.

MK262 has been phased out as the rifle program that drove it ended. The 5.56 precision rifle is gone and has been.

Ref other points- Exit wounds are absolutely a needed part of terminal performance. Blood trails…the proverbial sucking chest wound leading to lung collapse, and rapid incapacitation of game animals is going to happen more reliably and faster with a big exit wound. With modern bullets, an exit wound should be a given. There is no excuse for a bullet failing to exit and enable blood/air loss/entry. There is no advantage to the lack of an exit wound. It’s silly to say exit wounds aren’t needed…they blatantly are and anyone that’s tried to stop bleeding in real life can testify to it. I’ve done it and it’s a nightmare when you have nothing but air to pack against.


When you go into wound channels, size is relative and expanding bullets of the same caliber and weight will generally produce similar diameter wound tracts. Fragments are secondary projectiles and usually lack sufficient mass/energy to penetrate more that 2-3 inches from the point where they separated from the main projectile. That’s not good…but it’s not all bad depending on how much tissue the round has to penetrate before reaching vital organs.


That’s really the crux of the issue- Any modern bullet is deadly under ideal conditions. Bullets rapidly fall apart when you have to punch them through heavy bone like a moose shoulder or similar. That’s where bonded or mono bullets shine…when things are less than perfect. An unbonded cup and core bullet is going to get destroyed on a frontal quartering shot through the shoulder on a large heavy animal. Bone and a 18+ inch penetration requirement….no bueno.

Sounds like you have more experience with people getting shot than you have with elk being shot. Just how many 600+ lb animals have you seen shot with Berger bullets?