Do I need more grains?

[Koda_]

Re: Barnes minimum impact velocity.
I cant find this anywhere on their website.
Everything ive 'heard' was from hunting forums, the consensus is 2000fps minimum is what supposedly Barnes suggests, some people feel more comfortable staying above 2200fps as a safeguard.

If anyone has a link to Barnes a swering this that would be great...

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Are you basing this off personal experiences, or intel from other hunters? Curious because you’re the second person on here to recommend staying above what Barnes has stated as their minimum. I would think Barnes or any other ammo manufacturer would build a buffer into their recommendations.

Appreciate you chiming in.

In my opinion they don't. Their "minimum expansion velocity" is not FULL expansion. It would be very helpful if they stated what velocity was required for to expand all the way to the bottom of the hollow point (a bullet can get wider from there but that is a good peel back) and provided photos with velocity.

If you search around enough there are photos over the years of bullets at lower velocities (above their minimum) that don't have expansion that I would feel comfortable with.

In combination there is the more subjective nature of those of us who hunt them alot and notice 2200+ fps gives performance we desire. Then you have folks in here complaining they suck but you find you they shot rear lungs at 1900fps (for example) and yes the truama was minimal.

You can do whatever you choose but those of use with experience are telling you to add 400-500fps onto barnes's suggestion if you want to have consistent results.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Re: Barnes minimum impact velocity.
I cant find this anywhere on their website.
Everything ive 'heard' was from hunting forums, the consensus is 2000fps minimum is what supposedly Barnes suggests, some people feel more comfortable staying above 2200fps as a safeguard.

If you email barnes about specific bullets they will give you their "minimum expansion velocity", lots of the TTSX are 1800fps, some of the LRX are 1600fps and below.

BUT I can tell you as a barnes shooter for over a decade I'm not going anywhere near those velocities.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Here are some examples from users who've tested stuff:

 

[Koda_]

If you email barnes about specific bullets they will give you their "minimum expansion velocity", lots of the TTSX are 1800fps, some of the LRX are 1600fps and below.

BUT I can tell you as a barnes shooter for over a decade I'm not going anywhere near those velocities.

Then I just lost a whole lot of respect for Barnes, baically that means they dont want to stand behind their design by advertising its minimum.
I still think its a good bullet but hunters need to know and trust what the performance thresholds are. Ill stick with using Hammer bullets.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Then I just lost a whole lot of respect for Barnes, baically that means they dont want to stand behind their design by advertising its minimum.
I still think its a good bullet but hunters need to know and trust what the performance thresholds are. Ill stick with using Hammer bullets.

Its all subjective, expansion has started at their velocity.

Hammer isn't as transparent as you think either, I had some F'd up hunts because I got bullets from alloy with the wrong hardness. I am sure they've learned their lessons and check material test reports closely now but they didn't then. I am interesting in trying their HHT though.

 

[Koda_]

Its all subjective, expansion has started at their velocity.

Hammer isn't as transparent as you think either, I had some F'd up hunts because I got bullets from alloy with the wrong hardness. I am sure they've learned their lessons and check material test reports closely now but they didn't then. I am interesting in trying their HHT though.

Anything less than full expansion is BS, and Barnes should know this.

Hammers reputation in hunting forums is stellare, and the owner will reply to our inquiries directly and they very clearly advertise full expansion velocity minimum. Ill stick with Hammer over Barnes.

 

[Mike 338]

Couple dead elk. Seems you're doing fine.

That said I've always been a heavy bullet guy but I see no fault with your results.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Anything less than full expansion is BS, and Barnes should know this.

Hammers reputation in hunting forums is stellare, and the owner will reply to our inquiries directly and they very clearly advertise full expansion velocity minimum. Ill stick with Hammer over Barnes.

Use what you want.

I kinda thought it was BS being sold off spec bullets which they eventually realized but just hoped folks had shot them up versus notifying customers... They did replace them once I contacted them about my results but doesn't change the multiple rodeos that occurred due to them. It made me rather wary of hammers for a while. Son just shot a deer with the 131hh in 7mm though and it expanded, I do want to try the 132hht eventually as that large hollow point behind the tip seems like it'd have solid expansion.

Here are two bullets recovered from animals with that batch of bullets. Looks nothing like what hammers were advertised to do. The one on the left had an impact velocity ~2100fps, the one on the right was likely 2400-2500fps (it was 1 of 4 bullets that went into that animal before it fell, hard to know exactly when chasing an animal over a mile shooting it repeatedly after an initial solid broadside shot).

 

[Mike D Texas]

Anything less than full expansion is BS, and Barnes should know this.

Hammers reputation in hunting forums is stellare, and the owner will reply to our inquiries directly and they very clearly advertise full expansion velocity minimum. Ill stick with Hammer over Barnes.

I’ve had personal dealings with one of their owners and they aren’t as stand up as they may seem.

I’m not going into details here so don’t ask.

Be aware that ALL mono projectiles has a lower upset limit including Hammers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[sndmn11]

Are you basing this off personal experiences, or intel from other hunters?

Personal

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Experiences similar to this on whitetails are the reason I switched away from monos. Imo, they need impact velocity >3000 fps, which is not really feasible.

 

[amassi]

Are you basing this off personal experiences, or intel from other hunters? Curious because you’re the second person on here to recommend staying above what Barnes has stated as their minimum. I would think Barnes or any other ammo manufacturer would build a buffer into their recommendations.

Appreciate you chiming in.

Ask Barnes what qualifies as expansion and you’ll quickly realize there is no buffer because there is no expansion at those velocities


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[amassi]

Anything less than full expansion is BS, and Barnes should know this.

Hammers reputation in hunting forums is stellare, and the owner will reply to our inquiries directly and they very clearly advertise full expansion velocity minimum. Ill stick with Hammer over Barnes.

Well he’s got a group of zealots that’s for sure.

Takes a strong marketing arm and a bunch of very loyal and loud followers to capture the “long range hunting forum” with a bullet that sucks at long range hunting.

How does a fragmenting bullet reach full expansion? If it shed 3 petals but not 4 did it “expand”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JFK]

Experiences similar to this on whitetails are the reason I switched away from monos. Imo, they need impact velocity >3000 fps, which is not really feasible.

Muzzle velocity north of 3000fps, not impact.

 

[Koda_]

I kinda thought it was BS being sold off spec bullets which they eventually realized but just hoped folks had shot them up versus notifying customers... They did replace them once I contacted them about my results but doesn't change the multiple rodeos that occurred due to them. It made me rather wary of hammers for a while. Son just shot a deer with the 131hh in 7mm though and it expanded, I do want to try the 132hht eventually as that large hollow point behind the tip seems like it'd have solid expansion.

I only mentioned Hammer because they clearly advertise their minimum full expansion velocity and Barnes doesnt advertise theirs.

I think their HHT design is going to be an improvement in protecting the hollowpint, plus a larger hollowpoint behind it should perform better than their HH line.

 

[ResearchinStuff]

Muzzle velocity north of 3000fps, not impact.

Impact velocity. Because I've seen impacts from tsx bullets at 2950 and the wounds were pathetic.

 

[SloppyJ]

Here's the deal, I'll say it, use a different bullet. Unless you're REQUIRED to use a mono bullet, there are much better options out there if you're looking to put them down quickly.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Here's the deal, I'll say it, use a different bullet. Unless you're REQUIRED to use a mono bullet, there are much better options out there if you're looking to put them down quickly.

Fwiw I shot a deer with a 162eldm this year, it was “dead on its feet” on the first shot but still standing so I shot it a second time. N=1 but it didn’t die any quicker than others I’m shooting with monos. Insides were soup but it still took time to die.

Deployed properly and with the considerations I mentioned before Barnes can kill quite adequately / effectively.

NOW would an eldm through the heart/aerterial bundle dump a deer quick? I expect it would but that would likely come with an unacceptable magnitude of meat damage if hitting the shoulder I expect where as its reasonable with a mono.

They all have considerations and limitations.

Impact velocity. Because I've seen impacts from tsx bullets at 2950 and the wounds were pathetic.

Tsx might be a different thing as I've never used one but I've seen nothing with TTSX and LRX that would make me say 3000+fps impact velocity was needed, I've effectively killed lots of animals for over a decade with those bullets with the considerations I've mentioned previously.