Fragmenting bullets versus controlled expanding bullets

[S-3 ranch]

What do you think is the reason for that? Do you think it's because soft, heavy for caliber bullets driven at moderate speeds have different terminal performance in a cape buffalo than they do in elk, moose, etc as demonstrated time and time again and documented in detail? Or do you think that those PH's and Alaska guides are (understandably) hesitant to engage in something that is, to them, an experiment where their life and the life of their client rides on the outcome?

They have a recipe that is pretty well proven. Even if there is a recipe out there that is better, they have to weigh the risk/reward where the positive outcome is an improvement on what is in their mind an already effective system, and the negative outcome is potentially death of themselves and/or client.

That preference on their part is not in any way proof positive that tough bonded bullets kill more effectively than soft heavy for caliber bullets.

I shoot a 375Ruger, a 300 S.D bullet of 275-300gr bonded or mono is about minimum, those bastard old bulls are tough as hell , nobody wants a frangable
Bullet when you’re trying to punch though a wet bale of hay to reach the heart and lungs or a frontal shot as one is going to gore you
I wouldn’t ever shoot my 270gr Hornady rp-sp at a buffalo

 

[FredH]

This is a perfect example of something I've talked about a couple of times in these conversations... The pre-rangefinder days were a big driver of the "big, tough bullet is better" mindset. It had validity when a flat shooting rifle was the best way to extend effective range by reducing range estimation and bullet drop/hold over errors.

Heavy for caliber bullets are hard to drive fast, so light for caliber bullets were the order of the day (a 130 .277 has an SD around .24, pretty low). Light for caliber bullets moving fast do need to be tougher in order to avoid what you experienced. At extended range, those low BC bullets are moving really slowly, and a tough bullet moving slow won't upset much so bigger starting diameter helps some at those extended ranges.

Now that we can accurately measure range and accurately compensate for it with good scopes, we don't need warp 8 muzzle velocity to hit things at range. Since we don't need that MV, we can use heavy for caliber bullets. Since we are using heavy for caliber bullets starting a little slower, we can use softer bullets that upset well at lower impact velocity. Since we are using softer bullets that upset well, they don't need to be large diameter anymore to compensate for poor expansion at long range. Since they are higher SD and have better BC they maintain their velocity at extended range better than the lighter for caliber bullets and extend that effective terminal performance window even further with reliable, highly effective terminal performance.

A 270 running it's normal velocities pretty much makes it easy to dope drop without a rangefinder out to 450 yards just using the reticle to range with. Softer bullets as compared to what? Nosler Ballistic Tips open easily. the 130 having a superior BC (.433) to the vaunted 77 gr, Tipped Matchking, carries the ability to expand out to 600 yards. This using a mild 3050 fps starting velocity. That is plenty far enough for me. The 150 gr. Ballistic Tip does the same out to 600 yards started at 2850. With the added plus the Ballistic tips of these weights in .277 are controlled expanding bullets. Controlled expanding bullets have improved dramatically in the last couple decades, there are plenty of very good controlled expanding bullets out there in many diameters. Then to say tipped match bullets that work at low velocities by having thin jackets torn open by the tips is better than say similar bullets like the ELDX which works the same way other than that bullet is designed to hold more of it's weight is subjective. If your hunting requires an extra .100 BC to make it work then you are hunting under very specialized circumstances.

 

[JGRaider]

The front half of that partition fragments very violently.

Not anywhere remotely as violently as these modern bullets do, not even close.

 

[JGRaider]

I may have missed it, but has someone suggested anything against Phil Shoemaker? Didn't he kill a big bear with a 9mm?

Yes, there are many around here who are smarter than PS. It was evident in another thread.

 

[FredH]

Gotcha. I've pulled a fragment out of a roast while getting it prepped to cook a time or two, but I can't say I remember ever getting a piece of lead in a bite (other than birds) and noticing its taste.

"dust like particles" being ingested into the digestive system and actual dust being inhaled into the respiratory system are, as I understand it, very very different in terms of how much of that lead ends up in the bloodstream. This is something I learned pretty recently. I've always had a low level of unease regarding lead and risk of ingestion, but finally got around to digging into the research and learned that a lot of the "studies" that claim to show a link have (at best) pretty big holes in the methodology and/or tenuous link between the data they find and the conclusions they draw. That, combined with the observation that the errors/oversights all stack in the same direction, indicates to me that they are pursuing an agenda.

If your bank makes a bunch of small errors that's not great, but if half of them are in your favor and half are in theirs, you can probably assume they're honest mistakes. If a bank makes a bunch of small errors and they are all in their favor, it's probably safe to say there is something more than just sloppy accounting happening.

Well I often hunt where we get back to town in the middle of the night and drop our deer off at the processor, sometime 5 or 6 deer. A lot of it is turned into sausage and hamburger. We eat a lot of deer meat. Yes it isn't uncommon to find a lead or jacket fragment. And I usually use controlled expanding bullets with lead cores so bullets that totally fragment are going to spew more lead. Children are far more susceptable to lead caused issues than adults.

I used a 30-30 for a lot of years. The hunting I was doing at the time made it the perfect tool. With standard soft points it penetrated deeply and I rarely recovered a bullet. It also killed as well as needed making adequate damage. This was usually a 2" diameter hole all the way through and a 1 1/2" exit hole to leak blood out of. Oddly my 270 and 30-06 did about the same way out there at 400-450 yards. Also killing in a satisfactory manner using very common bullets like Hornady and Speer pointed flat based bullets. In many years of hunting Wyoming for ELk, Mule deer and Antelope I never had to settle for a shot further than that. I was always either able to get closer or just go looking for another animal.

 

[ElPollo]

A couple of things about modern fragmenting bullets. They are not designed like the old cup and core bullets. The newer tipped bullets are designed to fragment from the front and do so sort of like a pencil sharpener. Heavier and longer bullet will both penetrate more and fragment more. But that fragmentation doesn’t happen all at once. It occurs incrementally along the depth of the penetration. The fragmentation causes tissues that are stretched by the temporary wound channel to tear and hemorrhage resulting in quicker kills. With these bullets, you should relatively fast initial upsetting and fragmentation (2-4”) that expands into a football shaped wound channel. If you are seeing bullet like this explode on impact, you are using it beyond the velocity range it was designed for.

The other type of fragmenting bullet is the hollow points such as the Bergers and Scenars. These have a hollow cavity in the nose, but do not work like a traditional hollow point. All bullets will yaw to some degree upon impact. When a Berger or Scenar yaws, the hollow nose crushes, initiating fragmentation and increased tumbling. These bullets will tend to start fragmenting deeper in the tissue and you may or may not see full fragmentation resulting in a trumpet shaped wound channel. As with the tipped bullets, if you are seeing full fragmentation upon impact, you are using that bullet beyond its intended velocity range.

On the issue of lead fragmentation in meat, I will not discuss the taste because all the lead pipes and paint chips I apparently consumed as a child must have killed my taste buds. But seriously, lead fragments are governed by the laws of physics. Penetration is dependent on speed and mass. Tiny fragments with low mass are not going to travel long distances from the wound channel. If you trim liberally around the wound channel and avoid eating organ meat on anything shot in the chest cavity, you should be safe. And like others have said there is no evidence that consuming game meat results in high BLL levels.

 

[FredH]

The front half of that partition fragments very violently.

Yes, it's a beautiful thing. The rest of the bullet tends to keep going breaking bone and making a hole along the way.

 

[eric1115]

A 270 running it's normal velocities pretty much makes it easy to dope drop without a rangefinder out to 450 yards just using the reticle to range with. Softer bullets as compared to what? Nosler Ballistic Tips open easily. the 130 having a superior BC (.433) to the vaunted 77 gr, Tipped Matchking, carries the ability to expand out to 600 yards. This using a mild 3050 fps starting velocity. That is plenty far enough for me.

That's kind of what I'm getting at. Without a rangefinder, it's a big advantage to have a 3000+fps MV (3200 even better). With a rangefinder, you can get great expansion and terminal performance with 2/3 the bullet weight and half the powder charge, out to similar range.

I've actually never owned a .270, but it's been a favorite for a lot of guys in the group I've hunted with a bunch, so I've watched a lot of deer and elk shot with 130 to 150 NBT, accubonds, Barnes, and ELDX and dressed/quartered them afterwards. I don't think those wounds are substantially more or less devastating than I've seen with .22 and .24 cal TMK/ELD bullets (except the hard bonded/mono bullets, generally narrower wound channels and slower deaths).

The 150 gr. Ballistic Tip does the same out to 600 yards started at 2850. With the added plus the Ballistic tips of these weights in .277 are controlled expanding bullets. Controlled expanding bullets have improved dramatically in the last couple decades, there are plenty of very good controlled expanding bullets out there in many diameters.

That's getting into the trajectory and performance profile that we are talking about with the smaller diameter bullets. Again, we can get very similar terminal performance with much less bullet and powder. A 6CM with a 108/109 ELDM does that with ease, and a 6mm ARC doesn't need to be pushed very hard to do something very similar as well.

Then to say tipped match bullets that work at low velocities by having thin jackets torn open by the tips is better than say similar bullets like the ELDX which works the same way other than that bullet is designed to hold more of it's weight is subjective. If your hunting requires an extra .100 BC to make it work then you are hunting under very specialized circumstances.

I count the ELDM, ELDX, and TMK as being all very similar in terms of how they perform terminally from what I've seen personally and what I've seen documented. The "stay together"ness of the ELDX and its importance is in my opinion overstated by Hornady. It would take LOTS of animals shot and very very detailed notes to tease out meaningful differences between those three bullets in like calibers, weights, and impact velocity. A 6.5mm 130 TMK, 140 ELDM and 143 ELDX will all produce very similar wound channels and very similar average distance/time to incapacitation for similar shot placement.

The NBT, by the way, is a good bullet that I've used and enjoyed quite a bit. The 165 was one of my favorite .308 bullets for a while, and the 120 7mm put my son's first few deer on the ground reliably. It's a little harder (especially the 120 7mm) than I've come to prefer, and I think there's some basically "free" improvements to the profile available through the lower drag VLD style bullets (ELD, TMK, Berger if you like the way they work, Accubond LR, etc). These are incremental improvements though, and I definitely think they are more important the smaller you go. The benefit to me from the additional damage done by the softer bullets is that it allows the use of smaller cartridges/bullets, rather than that I think it's needed for the larger stuff. I'd happily use a NBT if I had to shoot a .308 or .270 and knew my shots were going to be under 400.

 

[FredH]

A couple of things about modern fragmenting bullets. They are not designed like the old cup and core bullets. The newer tipped bullets are designed to fragment from the front and do so sort of like a pencil sharpener. Heavier and longer bullet will both penetrate more and fragment more. But that fragmentation doesn’t happen all at once. It occurs incrementally along the depth of the penetration. The fragmentation causes tissues that are stretched by the temporary wound channel to tear and hemorrhage resulting in quicker kills. With these bullets, you should relatively fast initial upsetting and fragmentation (2-4”) that expands into a football shaped wound channel. If you are seeing bullet like this explode on impact, you are using it beyond the velocity range it was designed for.

The other type of fragmenting bullet is the hollow points such as the Bergers and Scenars. These have a hollow cavity in the nose, but do not work like a traditional hollow point. All bullets will yaw to some degree upon impact. When a Berger or Scenar yaws, the hollow nose crushes, initiating fragmentation and increased tumbling. These bullets will tend to start fragmenting deeper in the tissue and you may or may not see full fragmentation resulting in a trumpet shaped wound channel. As with the tipped bullets, if you are seeing full fragmentation upon impact, you are using that bullet beyond its intended velocity range.

On the issue of lead fragmentation in meat, I will not discuss the taste because all the lead pipes and paint chips I apparently consumed as a child must have killed my taste buds. But seriously, lead fragments are governed by the laws of physics. Penetration is dependent on speed and mass. Tiny fragments with low mass are not going to travel long distances from the wound channel. If you trim liberally around the wound channel and avoid eating organ meat on anything shot in the chest cavity, you should be safe. And like others have said there is no evidence that consuming game meat results in high BLL levels.

https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1237&=&context=hwi&=

 

[FredH]

That's kind of what I'm getting at. Without a rangefinder, it's a big advantage to have a 3000+fps MV (3200 even better). With a rangefinder, you can get great expansion and terminal performance with 2/3 the bullet weight and half the powder charge, out to similar range.

I've actually never owned a .270, but it's been a favorite for a lot of guys in the group I've hunted with a bunch, so I've watched a lot of deer and elk shot with 130 to 150 NBT, accubonds, Barnes, and ELDX and dressed/quartered them afterwards. I don't think those wounds are substantially more or less devastating than I've seen with .22 and .24 cal TMK/ELD bullets (except the hard bonded/mono bullets, generally narrower wound channels and slower deaths).


That's getting into the trajectory and performance profile that we are talking about with the smaller diameter bullets. Again, we can get very similar terminal performance with much less bullet and powder. A 6CM with a 108/109 ELDM does that with ease, and a 6mm ARC doesn't need to be pushed very hard to do something very similar as well.


I count the ELDM, ELDX, and TMK as being all very similar in terms of how they perform terminally from what I've seen personally and what I've seen documented. The "stay together"ness of the ELDX and its importance is in my opinion overstated by Hornady. It would take LOTS of animals shot and very very detailed notes to tease out meaningful differences between those three bullets in like calibers, weights, and impact velocity. A 6.5mm 130 TMK, 140 ELDM and 143 ELDX will all produce very similar wound channels and very similar average distance/time to incapacitation for similar shot placement.

The NBT, by the way, is a good bullet that I've used and enjoyed quite a bit. The 165 was one of my favorite .308 bullets for a while, and the 120 7mm put my son's first few deer on the ground reliably. It's a little harder (especially the 120 7mm) than I've come to prefer, and I think there's some basically "free" improvements to the profile available through the lower drag VLD style bullets (ELD, TMK, Berger if you like the way they work, Accubond LR, etc). These are incremental improvements though, and I definitely think they are more important the smaller you go. The benefit to me from the additional damage done by the softer bullets is that it allows the use of smaller cartridges/bullets, rather than that I think it's needed for the larger stuff. I'd happily use a NBT if I had to shoot a .308 or .270 and knew my shots were going to be under 400.

I just used the 270 as an example. I could have made similar remarks about the 243. Velocity is not my enemy.

 

[eric1115]

Yes, it's a beautiful thing. The rest of the bullet tends to keep going breaking bone and making a hole along the way.

Do you like a bullet that sheds lead fragments or no? I'm really not trying to do a "gotcha" here, I'm genuinely trying to understand your position. NBT's lose a fair bit of weight, Partitions intentionally shed a specific amount of weight from a specific portion of the bullet, and that's good? But any more than that is bad? Help me reconcile in my mind what your ideal terminal performance looks like.

 

[eric1115]

I missed this post but I do have one example of a bullet that cratered at high velocity. I was Antelope hunting in south central Wyoming. The shooter was my girlfriend who I met working at the Mast lounge in Green River. We were working our way through some broken country near the Black Butte coal mine when we walk right up on a doe at some 30 yards. The doe is unaware and my girlfriend whips the rifle up and shoots the doe right on the shoulder bone just below the joint. A crater 6" across erupts and the antelope takes off. After following it for 3 miles we barely beat the coyotes to it. The bullet did break the shoulder bone but broke up badly and only fragments made it through the rib cage. Had to be shot again. The rifle was a pre 64 Model 70 in 270 and the bullet was a 130 grain Sierra Prohunter pushed to around 3100 fps. This was in 1981 and I can attest to Sierra bullets being pretty soft back then, much softer than at least the Gamekings are now.

This is the original post of yours that prompted our last few messages we exchanged, so it was very much on topic to discuss it in terms of .270 performance.

I just used the 270 as an example. I could have made similar remarks about the 243. Velocity is not my enemy.

And a .243 would be a very similar conversation, except that the .243 starts to exhibit more underwhelming performance at extended ranges with the tough, light for caliber bullets that were the way to get speed out of a .243, and the danger of soft/lightly constructed low SD bullets like your pronghorn example is greater since they're smaller bullets in both scenarios.

To be 100% honest, I'm actually not completely sure what your argument/position is. Can you clarify what you're arguing? It seems at times like you're saying that the traditional "normal" deer and elk chamberings like .270 win with traditional(ish) bullets like Partition, NBT, etc are far better at killing than the softer smaller heavy for caliber bullets. Then other times it seems like you're saying they're just as good but don't deposit lead and are just as easy to shoot accurately and therefore better... I really struggle to know precisely what your position is.

 

[JGRaider]

Do you like a bullet that sheds lead fragments or no? I'm really not trying to do a "gotcha" here, I'm genuinely trying to understand your position. NBT's lose a fair bit of weight, Partitions intentionally shed a specific amount of weight from a specific portion of the bullet, and that's good? But any more than that is bad? Help me reconcile in my mind what your ideal terminal performance looks like.

IMO/IME there is no better terminal performance than the partition/accubond. Over a few hundred big game animals killed I've found none better than the beautifully controlled expansion and weight retention of these bullets. IME there's not a nickle's worth of difference between the two.

 

[S-3 ranch]

IMO/IME there is no better terminal performance than the partition/accubond. Over a few hundred big game animals killed I've found none better than the beautifully controlled expansion and weight retention of these bullets. IME there's not a nickle's worth of difference between the two.

Damn I wish nosler or Barnes have made 140gr accubond & ttsx back when we had a
.264wm , those partitions @ 3150 would make the lungs into jello and then blow out a goofball sized hole on stuff we shot like muley and white tail

 

[FredH]

Do you like a bullet that sheds lead fragments or no? I'm really not trying to do a "gotcha" here, I'm genuinely trying to understand your position. NBT's lose a fair bit of weight, Partitions intentionally shed a specific amount of weight from a specific portion of the bullet, and that's good? But any more than that is bad? Help me reconcile in my mind what your ideal terminal performance looks like.

I will accept a limited amount of fragmentation. Typically most bullets lose some lead, some turn into a shower of lead. I also want bones on the far side broken if possible.

 

[FredH]

IMO/IME there is no better terminal performance than the partition/accubond. Over a few hundred big game animals killed I've found none better than the beautifully controlled expansion and weight retention of these bullets. IME there's not a nickle's worth of difference between the two.

Exactly with some of the harder Ballistic Tips acting very similarly.

 

[FredH]

This is the original post of yours that prompted our last few messages we exchanged, so it was very much on topic to discuss it in terms of .270 performance.



And a .243 would be a very similar conversation, except that the .243 starts to exhibit more underwhelming performance at extended ranges with the tough, light for caliber bullets that were the way to get speed out of a .243, and the danger of soft/lightly constructed low SD bullets like your pronghorn example is greater since they're smaller bullets in both scenarios.

To be 100% honest, I'm actually not completely sure what your argument/position is. Can you clarify what you're arguing? It seems at times like you're saying that the traditional "normal" deer and elk chamberings like .270 win with traditional(ish) bullets like Partition, NBT, etc are far better at killing than the softer smaller heavy for caliber bullets. Then other times it seems like you're saying they're just as good but don't deposit lead and are just as easy to shoot accurately and therefore better... I really struggle to know precisely what your position is.

Not saying one or the other is "better" just that some bullets exhibit traits in their performance that I like better such as less lead deposited in the animal and adequate penetration which to me usually includes exit holes of useful size.

 

[Southern Lights]

My only complaint with fragmenting bullets is they wreck a lot of meat and shower the inside of the animal with lead particles. They kill fine, but if I am meat hunting I try to not use them any more or would neck/head shoot.

re: Lead in food.

Given two plates of meat: One is labeled as contains lead, and the other says it does not contain lead, most reading this thread pick the no lead meat to feed their family. They will do this regardless of what study they read about it that says eating lead is safe. And they do this because they instinctively know that eating lead is the bad option if given the choice not to do so.

 

[ElPollo]

https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1237&=&context=hwi&=

That is the study everyone cites but no one can replicate.

 

[mt terry d]

My only complaint with fragmenting bullets is they wreck a lot of meat and shower the inside of the animal with lead particles. They kill fine, but if I am meat hunting I try to not use them any more or would neck/head shoot.

re: Lead in food.

Given two plates of meat: One is labeled as contains lead, and the other says it does not contain lead, everyone reading this thread picks the no lead meat to feed their family. They will do this regardless of what study they read about it that says eating lead is safe. And they do this because they instinctively know that eating lead is the bad option if given the choice not to do so.

My family will eat both plates of meat and think nothing of it.

If you're not "meat hunting" do you just throw the meat away from an animal you've not shot in the
head or neck?

I've never taken an animal to a processor. If there's bullet damaged meat it gets tossed for the magpies,
ravens, eagles, coyotes and the neighbor's dogs.

Much ado about nothing, as the saying goes.