One Copper Bullet One Kill…

[bmart2622]

Yes, they make smaller wound channels compared to a cup and core bullet

 

[atmat]

Small hole? This was 2 days ago. Hammer 124. Lungs were shredded.

Any pics of the inside?

 

[SDHNTR]

Any pics of the inside?

I didn’t take any, but the lungs were destroyed and blood was copious. As is typical. Copper lethality is a non issue. I can’t believe it’s even worthy of discussion.

 

[bmart2622]

Youre still missing the point!!! Nobody on here has said that a copper bullet wont kill, but to say that they aren't balistically inferior to a cup and core is a ridiculous statement!! They have inferior BCs, higher expansion thresholds, and make smaller wound channels, those are facts and arguing otherwise is not worthy of a discussion

 

[Jason Snyder]

Yes, they make smaller wound channels compared to a cup and core bullet

A small wound channel with lung tissue hanging out the exit, and a dead animal is inferior. Got it.

At what point is a larger wound channel superior if the end result of each is a dead animal?

 

[Jason Snyder]

and limit distance/velocity for a shooter. That’s why people say “inferior ballistics.”

Do they really though?

I shot my bull at 415 yards last year. It was the longest shot I’ve taken in 20 years.

I’d be hard pressed to remember many times I spotted an animal at a long distance and couldn’t get within 300ish yards for a shot. In fact, the majority have been 200 and in, even in open country.

So, is it really limiting for folks? If I want to shoot 800, yes. If I’m content with 600 and in think your statement carries a lot less validity.

 

[bmart2622]

But if you want to and are capable of shooting further than 600yds his statement is completely valid and accurate

 

[Jason Snyder]

But if you want to and are capable of shooting further than 600yds his statement is completely valid and accurate

I never argued that. In fact, I clearly stated if I was a hard core long range guy, I probably wouldn’t used copper.

 

[bmart2622]

I guess Im not sure why you have been arguing with me for pages then?!? In your last post you literally questioned whether they limit a shooter!!!

 

[Jason Snyder]

I guess Im not sure why you have been arguing with me for pages then?!? In your last post you literally questioned whether they limit a shooter!!!

Carry on.

 

[bmart2622]

Carry on.

Classic!!!

 

[Jason Snyder]

Classic!!!

You’ve ascribed your own meaning to other folks statements, and can’t seem to grasp a discussion within context, soooo…

You are right. Carry on. I’ll go spend time reloading instead of furthering “discussion “ with you.

 

[bmart2622]

 

[waspocrew]

If I was forced to use non-lead projectiles then sure, I'd be using hammer or barnes for hunting. I've used them and they've all killed everything I've hit, so I can't say they are inferior at all. They are just way too expensive for me to load exclusively.

I will say this though: the hammers have been very forgiving and super easy to load. Seems they are not jump sensitive at all.

 

[atmat]

Do they really though?

I shot my bull at 415 yards last year. It was the longest shot I’ve taken in 20 years.

I’d be hard pressed to remember many times I spotted an animal at a long distance and couldn’t get within 300ish yards for a shot. In fact, the majority have been 200 and in, even in open country.

So, is it really limiting for folks? If I want to shoot 800, yes. If I’m content with 600 and in think your statement carries a lot less validity.

I don’t shoot animals much over 400 yards, either. I’ve used copper plenty.

Again, I never said copper doesn’t work. It’s just inferior to lead performance, which is objectively true.

Is the performance still adequate? Depends what you need it for. Personally I suck at shooting long range lol