Fragmenting bullets versus controlled expanding bullets

The 6 cm with the Hornady factory offering made the 6mm relevant again for hunting, in my opinion. But the 6UM made the 6mm great again.....
No doubt. I'd have a 243, but want a 1:8 twist to shoot heavies if I wanted so probably would need to get modern cartridge. The heaviest calibre I shoot hunting now is 270, 6.5 and 223. Small calibers do the business.
 
No doubt. I'd have a 243, but want a 1:8 twist to shoot heavies if I wanted so probably would need to get modern cartridge. The heaviest calibre I shoot hunting now is 270, 6.5 and 223. Small calibers do the business.
Why the .270?
 
Why the .270?
Basically, when I bought my Blaser that was the barrel it came with. I never shot one thinking it was a pretty unexciting calibre. But, it gives me essentially 6.5 PRC performance if I think I need to shoot long, and cheap ammo for field shooting practice. Drops are flat for range estimation error reduction, wind deflection is fine for distances I would shoot a big game animal, and barrel life is good.

With that said, I have 223 and 6.5CM barrels as well. For culls I probably shoot 223 more and 270 for more serious hunts if there is any chance of longer ranges.
 
Basically, when I bought my Blaser that was the barrel it came with. I never shot one thinking it was a pretty unexciting calibre. But, it gives me essentially 6.5 PRC performance if I think I need to shoot long, and cheap ammo for field shooting practice. Drops are flat for range estimation error reduction, wind deflection is fine for distances I would shoot a big game animal, and barrel life is good.

With that said, I have 223 and 6.5CM barrels as well. For culls I probably shoot 223 more and 270 for more serious hunts if there is any chance of longer ranges.
Makes sense.

What are you culling? Are any of the cull's headshots?
 
Makes sense.

What are you culling? Are any of the cull's headshots?

In NZ there is no hunting season as deer are pest animals. So yes we shoot a lot of deer here. Of the guys I hunt with, many would use 223 for culling with head shots. Especially if we are out at night with thermals as ranges tend to be close. Also I'm primarily a meat hunter so I would try head or neck shots if given the choice. But once distance is over 200 I go for shoulder shots. At night I mostly use 223 and then it really doesn't matter what bullet you use as anything in the head is going to finish it.
 
I remembered Jack O'Connor wrote about fragmenting bullets at high speed/smaller calibres many times. One quote I just found:

"With lighter big-game animals, the biggest problem is quick expansion instead of deep penetration. The right medicine is the bullet that expands rapidly and even disintegrates. I have gotten more instantaneous kills on Arizona whitetail deer, with dress out on average of 90-110 pounds, with the Barnes pre-World War II 120 grain 270 bullet than any other. It had a thin jacket and soft lead core. When driven at about 3,250 at the muzzle it was a bomb. I found that a hit anywhere near the heart would almost always rupture the heart with fragments. I never had one of those bullets pass through even a light deer or antelope with a chest shot, and I cannot remember anything but one-shot, instantaneous kills."

Jack O'Connor Complete Book of Rifles and Shotguns (1961)
 
I remembered Jack O'Connor wrote about fragmenting bullets at high speed/smaller calibres many times. One quote I just found:

"With lighter big-game animals, the biggest problem is quick expansion instead of deep penetration. The right medicine is the bullet that expands rapidly and even disintegrates. I have gotten more instantaneous kills on Arizona whitetail deer, with dress out on average of 90-110 pounds, with the Barnes pre-World War II 120 grain 270 bullet than any other. It had a thin jacket and soft lead core. When driven at about 3,250 at the muzzle it was a bomb. I found that a hit anywhere near the heart would almost always rupture the heart with fragments. I never had one of those bullets pass through even a light deer or antelope with a chest shot, and I cannot remember anything but one-shot, instantaneous kills."

Jack O'Connor Complete Book of Rifles and Shotguns (1961)
This is cool. I read and absorbed as much as I could when I starterd, and never heard stuff like that.

Reinforces the fact that fuddlore is strong and “wallop” is a the password to the club.
 
This is cool. I read and absorbed as much as I could when I starterd, and never heard stuff like that.

Reinforces the fact that fuddlore is strong and “wallop” is a the password to the club.

Jack O'Connor was well before my time, but the last several years I bought his old books and read them. They are still pretty relevant if you ignore the advice on scope mounting, etc. But overall philosophy and detached analysis is still good and I recommend reading them.

Basically, there is nothing new under the Sun. All the debates on calibre, velocity, etc. on the Internet was done decades ago in print. The main difference today is bullet design is better, but probably not as much as people think in terms of actual field results. There have been controlled expanding bullets for decades, and explosive fragmenting bullets for just as long.

My primary experience are with match/hunting bullets that penetrate a few inches and blow apart like a shotgun into the vitals. They always kill well. But I've since switched to monos like Barnes and Sako Blades and honestly can't tell much difference in how they kill. The animals either fall down immediately, or run maybe 10-30 yards tops before going over which is my upper limit of what I'd call acceptable for fast kills.

Mind you, I am not into long range hunting and keep my shots on game animals under 400, with high preference to 300 and under (where 99% of my shots on deer are).
 
Then watch their video actually shooting game. Spoiler: the 108ELDM killed everything with ease.
Almost same performance, but just so someone can’t say we are liars, I believe Steve was shooting the 103 ELD-X
 
Jack O'Connor was well before my time, but the last several years I bought his old books and read them. They are still pretty relevant if you ignore the advice on scope mounting, etc. But overall philosophy and detached analysis is still good and I recommend reading them.

Basically, there is nothing new under the Sun. All the debates on calibre, velocity, etc. on the Internet was done decades ago in print. The main difference today is bullet design is better, but probably not as much as people think in terms of actual field results. There have been controlled expanding bullets for decades, and explosive fragmenting bullets for just as long.

My primary experience are with match/hunting bullets that penetrate a few inches and blow apart like a shotgun into the vitals. They always kill well. But I've since switched to monos like Barnes and Sako Blades and honestly can't tell much difference in how they kill. The animals either fall down immediately, or run maybe 10-30 yards tops before going over which is my upper limit of what I'd call acceptable for fast kills.

Mind you, I am not into long range hunting and keep my shots on game animals under 400, with high preference to 300 and under (where 99% of my shots on deer are).
Makes sense. I wish there were enough deer here to make every shot inside 300 yards. At high velocity, any decent bullet is gonna kill quickly.

My narrow part of argument is that these small tangible bullets do kill well, which is denied by so many. There should be no debate about that now.

Which bullet is “better”? Sure, have that argument all you want.

I don’t care what anyone else shoots. Choose more wallop. Make the choice but keep it to opinions, preferences, and reasons…
 
Makes sense. I wish there were enough deer here to make every shot inside 300 yards. At high velocity, any decent bullet is gonna kill quickly.

My narrow part of argument is that these small tangible bullets do kill well, which is denied by so many. There should be no debate about that now.

Which bullet is “better”? Sure, have that argument all you want.

I don’t care what anyone else shoots. Choose more wallop. Make the choice but keep it to opinions, preferences, and reasons…
I don't see a lot of people saying small frangible bullets don't kill well. I see various bullet designs as tools for different circumstances.
 
I don't see a lot of people saying small frangible bullets don't kill well. I see various bullet designs as tools for different circumstances.
Maybe not on Rokslide. Elsewhere, it’s common.

(Exhibits A, B, and C: Joseph Von Benedict, Nathan Foster, and Ron Spomer)
 
There is a couple recent podcasts where JVB ranted against it, and one he had Nathan Foster. A third one he deleted where he named the EXO guys and the 6 cm.

Most people don’t get drawn into the drama of it all, cause who cares…

But, it’s out there is all. The “debate” still rages on since forever.
 
Maybe not on Rokslide. Elsewhere, it’s common.

(Exhibits A, B, and C: Joseph Von Benedict, Nathan Foster, and Ron Spomer)

I know Nathan Foster so don't want to put words in his mouth. But he recommends many different types of bullets and certainly has used his fair share of frangible projectiles like AMAX, etc. He had even recommended to me to try some 178 AMAX in .308 and that's a frangible hand grenade on animals. Almost too much damage due to fragmenting and I stopped using it.

But .223 is used on a mess of deer in New Zealand and has been for many many years. Also, he focuses a lot on long range hunting and has very specific parameters he wants to see in terms of terminal ballistics at range.

Just a guess, but I doubt he'd recommend the average hunter use 223 just due to bad experience with 222 down here in NZ. Back then deer cullers were using that calibre and everyone that thought they were a deer culler decided to use the calibre and wound a bunch of stuff.

I have his book The Practical Guide to Long Range Hunting Cartridges (Second Edition Published 2017). In the .223 section he states:

"...we must start by understanding a basic rule - the smaller the bore, the higher the velocity needs to be in order to create disproportionate caliber wounding. In other words, the faster it goes, the bigger the wound. But with modern long and heavy match style bullets, we can partially break this rule. (emphasis added)...

We can sacrifice some velocity and use mechanical wounding (large bullet fragments) to obtain a wide wound while the long bullet and gradual fragmentation allow for adequate penetration. This performance is however dependent on the ability of the bullet to expand at mild impact velocities."

He continues:

"...I now find myself leaning towards the use of heavy match bullets in this cartridge for all hunting, not just extended range work..."

"I do not generally recommend the .223 for long or even intermediate long range hunting of medium game. But there are some who prefer to use it in this manner. For those who whish to explore this avenue there are now five projectiles I recommend for intermediate long range hunting of lighter medium game. These include the 73, 75, and 80 grain ELD-M and the Sierra 69 and 77 grain TMK."

So there you go, written in 2013, with second edition in 2017. He's certainly aware of this trend.
 
There is a couple recent podcasts where JVB ranted against it, and one he had Nathan Foster. A third one he deleted where he named the EXO guys and the 6 cm.

Most people don’t get drawn into the drama of it all, cause who cares…

But, it’s out there is all. The “debate” still rages on since forever.

The main issue I have with hunting is not the caliber, but that there is tons of BS with long range hunting. Lots of videos and I know that they've edited out the misses and wounded animals. I know this because I have heard the stories from NZ guides that take these famous long range animal snipers out and saw what really was happening at least in our neck of the woods.

So then everyone watches their tripe on YT or wherever and thinks "Golly I too am gonna snipe me some deer with my 6mm Ballscratcher"

But really at extended ranges the calbre isn't going to save you. A gut shot with a 6mm is just as bad as with a 338. And if you are shooting past 400y, odds of something going wrong go way up and I don't care what the Internet snipers have to say. I have shot tons of LR and ELR and know the realities.

At ethical hunting ranges, calibre does not matter that much as long as the bullet can do the business when shot in the right place. Which means it can expand/fragment at the impact velocity and penetrate to get into the body cavity while doing it.
 
The main issue I have with hunting is not the caliber, but that there is tons of BS with long range hunting. Lots of videos and I know that they've edited out the misses and wounded animals. I know this because I have heard the stories from NZ guides that take these famous long range animal snipers out and saw what really was happening at least in our neck of the woods.

So then everyone watches their tripe on YT or wherever and thinks "Golly I too am gonna snipe me some deer with my 6mm Ballscratcher PRC"

But really at extended ranges the calbre isn't going to save you. A gut shot with a 6mm is just as bad as with a 338. And if you are shooting past 400y, odds of something going wrong go way up and I don't care what the Internet snipers have to say. I have shot tons of LR and ELR and know the realities.

At ethical hunting ranges, calibre does not matter that much as long as the bullet can do the business when shot in the right place.
True on all accounts. Social media skews fake for everything.

Just like guys going John Wayne on running deer. It’s the person not the tool.
 
Back
Top