Copper Ammo Recomendations

[Weber]

They all work. Shoot the one that’s most accurate.

Clearly didn't read my post.

 

[Weber]

Hey, I've shot one antelope buck and one whitetail with these bullets so far. The Antelope with Controlled Chaos and the Whitetail with the DRT.

Have posted photos and reports of bullet performance here:

Best Mono Bullet for Hunting/Effective Kills

I’m shooting the same velocity as the OP in my 6.5, also a 124 Hammer Hunter. No issues for me with respect to speed.

rokslide.com

Thanks for posting. Will follow that thread. Found some data that said the cx's will expand at 1800. Going to test them against the ttsx's this year. Will try to capture some data on longer range/lower velocity impacts I'm expecting.

I have some Controlled Chaos I will also test out of a shorter barrel. Supposedly it'll open as low as 1500 so will be good out to 250-275 yards

Opted out of the DRT. Heard back from them on MOV but I don't want a grenade due to meat loss, fragments in meat, and the devastation of those accidental shoulder hits

 

[SDHNTR]

Clearly didn't read my post.

I sure did, every word.

Shoot the one that’s most accurate.

 

[Weber]

I sure did, every word.

Shoot the one that’s most accurate.

Doesnt solve the problem. Jog on guy

 

[SDHNTR]

Doesnt solve the problem. Jog on guy

Because there isn’t a problem. Shoot the one that is most accurate so you can put it where it needs to go. Do that and the same result will occur for all of your choices.

 

[Weber]

Because there isn’t a problem. Shoot the one that is most accurate so you can put it where it needs to go. Do that and the same result will occur for all of your choices.

No. It won't. Minimum opening velocities are a thing.

Appreciate you trying to help but as you eloquently put it:

"There are no absolutes in the field. There’s value in both sides of an argument."

A pencil hole through game in the last hours of daylight at 300 yds equals hours searching for game i likely will not find due to the terrain and animal I'm shooting. I don't want to shoot a lead bullet for my own reasons. Which means I must either change caliber, which I do not wish to do for my own reasons. Or I must ensure the bullet I'm using will open at these ranges, reliably, whilst also being accurate. A reduced MOV = longer range capability.

Barring CNS shots which would be irresponsible in these shooting conditions it does matter, regardless of accuracy, what the MOV of these bullets are, outside of maybe the DRT rounds due to their fragmented nature

 

[SDHNTR]

No. It won't. Minimum opening velocities are a thing.

Appreciate you trying to help but as you eloquently put it:

"There are no absolutes in the field. There’s value in both sides of an argument."

A pencil hole through game in the last hours of daylight at 300 yds equals hours searching for game i likely will not find due to the terrain and animal I'm shooting. I don't want to shoot a lead bullet for my own reasons. Which means I must either change caliber, which I do not wish to do for my own reasons. Or I must ensure the bullet I'm using will open at these ranges, reliably, whilst also being accurate. A reduced MOV = longer range capability.

Barring CNS shots which would be irresponsible in these shooting conditions it does matter, regardless of accuracy, what the MOV of these bullets are, outside of maybe the DRT rounds due to their fragmented nature

Yes, minimum velocities are a thing, but it’s not alchemy, it’s common sense. I don’t think it’s a complex matter, shoot a faster cartridge, or limit range. Those are the only practical choices. There aren’t enough differences in mono bullet construction (despite their attempts at marketing) to warrant treating any of them any differently.

 

[Weber]

Yes, minimum velocities are a thing, but it’s not alchemy, it’s common sense. I don’t think it’s a complex matter, shoot a faster cartridge, or limit range. Those are the only practical choices. There aren’t enough differences in mono bullet construction (despite their attempts at marketing) to warrant treating any of them any differently.

Ballistics tests say otherwise.

I guess in part "shoot a faster cartridge" isn't acceptable for my parameters but shooting a faster factory load (Superformance) or a lower grain that is still effective on game (50gr potentially) is. Which this thread is intended to help me find. And if MOV is achieved at lower velocities it solves the same problem.

It seems you disagree with the idea of lower MOV's. Which is fair, but I don't accept that as a valid argument based on data collected. If 2 rounds both fly at 3000 fps, but one opens at 500 fps lower (reliably and accurately as you point out) it has increased its effective range 200 yards, which is a significant change and does solve my problem. Now you may be right about MOV not differing much amongst them, but SO FAR (and willing to be proven wrong) that is not what I'm finding. TBD I suppose. But just like my other thread you've dropped a one liner on, I'm collecting data to determine that, not taking a dude on their internets word for it and looking no deeper.

I have specific requirements and use cases. What you're proposing doesn't solve them. I do appreciate what you're trying to convey but please understand that its not adding anything useful to the discussion. But please do share if you have data to offer to the discussion. Especially in 223/308 loads at lower velocities/further ranges.

 

[SDHNTR]

Well, all I can tell you is with my .223 and my .308, which also both have 18” bbls making them even slower, I just don’t take long shots. I shoot the mono that is most accurate in each, 62 TTSX and 154 HHT, respectively.

If I want to take a longer shot with a mono, I shoot something with more juice and out comes the 6.5 prc, for example. I don’t look to the bullet to solve the “problem” because there isn’t enough meaningful difference in their construction to matter much. Assuming same accuracy, Mono Bullet A vs Mono Bullet B, isn’t going to move the needle to the point that it makes a critter any more or less dead. 200 fps less “MOV” isn’t enough to matter IMO, and I just don’t buy that 500 less even exists.

It’s seems to me the nature of this post is that you are trying to find ways to jam that proverbial square peg into the round hole. Methinks, instead, use a different peg. And if that means one “peg” must be a mono, then the only other “peg” you have to work with is a faster cartridge.

Or accept the inherent limitations in play.

 

[Ringbill27]

Well, all I can tell you is with my .223 and my .308, which also both have 18” bbls making them even slower, I just don’t take long shots. I shoot the mono that is most accurate in each, 62 TTSX and 154 HHT, respectively.

If I want to take a longer shot with a mono, I shoot something with more juice and out comes the 6.5 prc, for example. I don’t look to the bullet to solve the “problem” because there isn’t enough meaningful difference in their construction to matter much. Assuming same accuracy, Mono Bullet A vs Mono Bullet B, isn’t going to move the needle to the point that it makes a critter any more or less dead. 200 fps less “MOV” isn’t enough to matter IMO, and I just don’t buy that 500 less even exists.

It’s seems to me the nature of this post is that you are trying to find ways to jam that proverbial square peg into the round hole. Methinks, instead, use a different peg. And if that means one “peg” must be a mono, then the only other “peg” you have to work with is a faster cartridge.

Or accept the inherent limitations in play.

Well said.

 

[Weber]

Well, all I can tell you is with my .223 and my .308, which also both have 18” bbls making them even slower, I just don’t take long shots. I shoot the mono that is most accurate in each, 62 TTSX and 154 HHT, respectively.

If I want to take a longer shot with a mono, I shoot something with more juice and out comes the 6.5 prc, for example. I don’t look to the bullet to solve the “problem” because there isn’t enough meaningful difference in their construction to matter much. Assuming same accuracy, Mono Bullet A vs Mono Bullet B, isn’t going to move the needle to the point that it makes a critter any more or less dead. 200 fps less “MOV” isn’t enough to matter IMO, and I just don’t buy that 500 less even exists.

It’s seems to me the nature of this post is that you are trying to find ways to jam that proverbial square peg into the round hole. Methinks, instead, use a different peg. And if that means one “peg” must be a mono, then the only other “peg” you have to work with is a faster cartridge.

Or accept the inherent limitations in play.

cool. That doesn't fit my use case but glad it's working for you. Thanks for the input and best wishes to you. The data supports a 200-500fps difference which does in fact make a difference in range. 75-200 yds difference, which for me is precisely what I want

Back to on topic discussion. Will post findings here in a couple of weeks.

 

[SDHNTR]

cool. That doesn't fit my use case. Thanks for the input and best wishes to you. The data supports a 200-500fps difference which does in fact make a difference in range. 75-200 yds difference, which for me is precisely what I want

Back to on topic discussion. Will post findings here in a couple of weeks.

What "data"? I'm genuinely curious. All I've ever seen is marketing. And my own experience of hundreds of animals. Dead is dead.

 

[z987k]

Thanks for posting. Will follow that thread. Found some data that said the cx's will expand at 1800. Going to test them against the ttsx's this year. Will try to capture some data on longer range/lower velocity impacts I'm expecting.

I have some Controlled Chaos I will also test out of a shorter barrel. Supposedly it'll open as low as 1500 so will be good out to 250-275 yards

Opted out of the DRT. Heard back from them on MOV but I don't want a grenade due to meat loss, fragments in meat, and the devastation of those accidental shoulder hit

If you look at what the manufacturers claim for minimum velocity it's usually to either get bullet diameter opening or just any opening.
I think if you look at these shot into Ballistics gel at the lower velocities you'll find just about all of them are full of crap regarding MOV for what people actually expect from a hunting bullet.
The fracturing bullets tend to work a little better at lower velocities than expanding, but I wouldn't actually trust that to happen. Maybe with the exception of Maker, those very clearly open up where he says they will and he's got the gel to prove it... mostly subsonic.
Keep all your mono impacts above 2000fps and preferably more.

 

[z987k]

cool. That doesn't fit my use case but glad it's working for you. Thanks for the input and best wishes to you. The data supports a 200-500fps difference which does in fact make a difference in range. 75-200 yds difference, which for me is precisely what I want

Back to on topic discussion. Will post findings here in a couple of weeks.

Again those mov numbers just don't hold up when tested. The best you can do with a small cartridge that is limiting muzzle velocity is to pick a mono with a higher bc.
Apex and McGuire have some of the best.
And it is that much higher than a hammer or a ttsx that you'll pick up a lot of yards to that MOV.

 

[SDHNTR]

If you look at what the manufacturers claim for minimum velocity it's usually to either get bullet diameter opening or just any opening.
I think if you look at these shot into Ballistics gel at the lower velocities you'll find just about all of them are full of crap regarding MOV for what people actually expect from a hunting bullet.
The fracturing bullets tend to work a little better at lower velocities than expanding, but I wouldn't actually trust that to happen.
Keep all your mono impacts above 2000fps and preferably more.

Bingo!

 

[Weber]

Controlled chaos Full expansion at 1472...

CX Full expansion at 1747...

Hammer 1700 fps...

Ttsx 1660

Ttsx, 1.6x at 1700, 1.8 at 1850.

plenty of other testing done on monos. Dig around. I'll post more once I get back from my next trip but can we please drop the echo chamber of 2000 fps from people who haven't tried or even looked. Just regurgitating what some other guy said or counting the number of animals you've killed (with irrelevant data since they are not pushing into these velocities).

Not much out there for 223 testing. Hence my question. I run 168gr TTSX though in my .30 calibers because barnes clearly states they expand at 1500 while other weights they state 1800-2000. Im sure someone will have some Conspiracy theory about why they are lying to me to sell more 168gr vs their 165s...

I can say definitively the 110gr ttsx in 30 cal will open well at 1350fps.

But yall keep pushing the monos above 2000, and yes many of them require that, but I'll ask for, find, and use better.

What "data"? I'm genuinely curious. All I've ever seen is marketing. And my own experience of hundreds of animals. Dead is dead.

If you look at what the manufacturers claim for minimum velocity it's usually to either get bullet diameter opening or just any opening.
I think if you look at these shot into Ballistics gel at the lower velocities you'll find just about all of them are full of crap regarding MOV for what people actually expect from a hunting bullet.

Again those mov numbers just don't hold up when tested.

 

[z987k]

plenty of other testing done on monos. Dig around. I'll post more once I get back from my next trip but can we please drop the echo chamber of 2000 fps from people who haven't tried or even looked. Just regurgitating what some other guy said or counting the number of animals you've killed (with irrelevant data since they are not pushing into these velocities).

Not much out there for 223 testing. Hence my question. I run 168gr TTSX though in my .30 calibers because barnes clearly states they expand at 1500 while other weights they state 1800-2000. Im sure someone will have some Conspiracy theory about why they are lying to me to sell more 168gr vs their 165s...

I can say definitively the 110gr ttsx in 30 cal will open well at 1350fps.

But yall keep pushing the monos above 2000, and yes many of them require that, but I'll ask for, find, and use better.

In this video there is completely inadequate expansion at 300 and beyond. Also, he's hitting water, which isn't a valid test.

In this video he never recovers the CX at 1747fps. We have no idea what it expanded to

The controlled chaos did really well at the lower velocity.

I've used all of those copper bullets and many more. I still would not recommend that low of impact velocity to any mushrooming copper bullet. The fracturing ones do tend to operate better at the lower velocities. The maker bullets open exactly as he says they do at the velocities he says.

 

[Weber]

In this video there is completely inadequate expansion at 300 and beyond. Also, he's hitting water, which isn't a valid test.

In this video he never recovers the CX at 1747fps. We have no idea what it expanded to

The controlled chaos did really well at the lower velocity.

I've used all of those copper bullets and many more. I still would not recommend that low of impact velocity to any mushrooming copper bullet. The fracturing ones do tend to operate better at the lower velocities. The maker bullets open exactly as he says they do at the velocities he says.

1.6 and 1.8 is plenty acceptable in my book. And the 300 impacted the table hence it's failure.

Re:cx see wound cavity.

I never said this proves it. But this is DATA that certainly points to some bullets for some cartridges in some weights are capable of expansion to acceptable levels at well under 2000 fps which depending on their BC gives anything from 100-300yd additional effective range for monos.

Point is the data supports there are some functioning monos at lower velocities and you 2 just refuse to accept it. You are just wasting my time and anyone else who has interest in the thread to espous completely unsupported claims.

Ill do some of my own gel tests.

 

[z987k]

1.6 and 1.8 is plenty acceptable in my book. And the 300 impacted the table hence it's failure.

Re:cx see wound cavity.

I never said this proves it. But this is DATA that certainly points to some bullets for some cartridges in some weights are capable of expansion to acceptable levels at well under 2000 fps which depending on their BC gives anything from 100-300yd additional effective range for monos.

Point is the data supports there are some functioning monos at lower velocities and you 2 just refuse to accept it. You are just wasting my time and anyone else who has interest in the thread to espous completely unsupported claims.

Ill do some of my own gel tests.

But it's not 1.6 or 1.8. It's a single petal managed to open a lot more than the rest of it and skew the measurement. The whole bullet did not open to that.

Some monos do really well at stated velocities. Some are manufacturer bs to sell sub optimal garbage. It's mostly the big guys. But it's telling when they dont publish their test results and show you what they mean. With barnes and the minimum expansion velocities you can ask them but they will not publish anything.
All you have is basically internet folklore.

I used to shoot a lot of badlands. He claimed down to 1600fps. And he published what impacts at lower velocities looked like.
They did expand but not what I'd consider acceptable. But up at 1900fps it was. The bc was so good with those bullets there was never an issue keeping impacts up. So I still used them.
Maker bullets also has a ton a ballistic gel testing and they publish it. Expansion down to 500fps with the low velocity expanding stuff.
Leighigh does as well. I hunt with their hg raptor bullet. I think it's the best non lead hunting pistol bullet out there.

 

[Weber]

Did some testing today but I dont have enough ballistics gel on hand to catch some of the rounds, and my chrono was dead (and my wife stole the charger from my car, just can't win today). But using data from previous sessions and some assumptions I have some findings, albeit incomplete. The only finding I think is concrete out of any of these is the performance of the CX round, which, spoiler, was disappointing at even higher FPS.

Its late, I'm tired, and I have a lot of other prep I'm doing for a trip so bear with me. Going to be light on elaboration and additional info but will try to give a picture of what I'm seeing thus far. I'll do more testing after some more blocks arrive and I'm not on a time crunch.

For size reference, this is a 10x10x20 block of 10% gel. One thing to note is ambient temp was around 20 degrees and probably impacted expansion with these being barrier blind, they need moisture.

.223 out of a 10.3 in barrel (1/7 Twist)
55gr TSX
Muzzle: ~2620 fps
Target: ~1800 fps

Findings: I made this same shot multiple times later on in this block to find each pattern was mostly straight with a veer at the end. No recoveries from this gun, mostly due to the lower expansion not slowing it down.

There is some expansion, but it is unknown exactly how much. At first, I ruled this a failure due to a small permanent wound cavity, but comparing it to my 16-inch barrel later, and how similar the cavities were, I've rethought the initial position. I've killed 15 deer in the last 3 years with the 16 inch. All of them with the exception of a few spine hits were soup. I don't recall exact ranges but I do remember one in particular that was at 217 and it was soup. I want to do more testing and comparisons but for now I think its safe to say I'm seeing expansion at 1800 but I don't know how much yet. Inconclusive result for sure.


62 gr Maker, 55 gr CX, and 62 gr Controlled Chaos
Muzzle: Unknown - Estimated the same for CX as the TSX, the 62gr is estimated at 2300fps
Target: Estimated the same for CX as the TSX, the 62gr is estimated at 1720-1750fps

Not bothering to point out which is which here as they all basically did the same thing. 0 Expansion, some tumbling. The 62 gr Controlled chaos did start to open (the middle track) as the one exception but minimal expansion.

You can also see below the 55gr Controlled chaos which should be moving a little slower successfully fragmented. Tested these several times and saw good expansion across the board, though not very deep. Very much a lung grenade but don't think I'd trust these for some shot angles.




I don't have time to type up the rest but the 16 in did better with all but the CX. They failed to expand even thought they are moving at 2250 on impact. Recovered several with 0 expansion and only tumbling.

Will comment more later. Maker did well, TSX did well, CC did well. TTSX I'm not sold on but need to test again. I wouldn't draw any real conclusions other than I'm unimpressed with CX. Will give it another shot later at close range to see what it does but its ruled out for now.