Why Match/Target Bullets For Hunting

[Lou270]

I am sorry but not following you. Sounds to me like we are saying the same thing. Are you disagreeing that yaw causes the nose collapse or something else. Note that yaw is not numbling or turning sideways necessarly. The bullet is “wobbling” presenting more surface area which collapses things. The bullet may not tumble before coming apart if velocity is high enough. If velocity is low it may tumble and come apart or stay together This is why bergers penetrate deeper at long range before letting go.

 

[Formidilosus]

I am sorry but not following you. Sounds to me like we are saying the same thing. Are you disagreeing that yaw causes the nose collapse or something else. Note that yaw is not numbling or turning sideways necessarly. The bullet is “wobbling” presenting more surface area which collapses things. The bullet may not tumble before coming apart if velocity is high enough. If velocity is low it may tumble and come apart or stay together This is why bergers penetrate deeper at long range before letting go.

For clarity, are you meaning yaw inside tissue, or angle of attack (AOA) as the bullet strikes tissue?

If a bullet yaws at all in tissue, it’s going to tumble, turn sideways and then maybe break or fragment. If yawing causes the tip to break off, it has destabilized that bullet and it will continue tumbling. Somewhere above 2,000fps impact speeds, Bergers are not yawing in tissue. Their long, thin nose with deep cavity collapses in on itself, or starts collapsing and tears off, then the bullet fragments from the front. In either case, it remains point forward.

 

[Lou270]

Ah ok. My assumption is based on few observations:

1) All pointed bullets start to yaw as soon as they enter more dense material. The yaw is a feedback mechanism that will eventually cause the bullet to swap ends. The better the OAO is the longer it takes for this to happen but its still a matter of few inches difference. In the case of an expanding bullet they change shape and shoulder stabilaztion keeps “point forward”. The shape change happens in first couple inches

2) Bergers have a neck or narrow channel like bullets that fragment due to yaw. Also, the neck length increases with distance just like a otm/fmj. For ex, Barbour creek has good video showing berger 135 6.5 at 30 yards and 600 yards. The neck is maybe 2-3 in at close range and 5-7 in at longer distance.

3) The hollow section on a berger is what .25 in maybe a little more? This should collapse much less than 3-5” to start fragmentation if that is primary reason I would think. Dynamic pressure is proportional to v^2 so as bullet penetrates and loses velocity there is less force acting on a bullet not more as it penetrates.

I am always learning on this stuff so like the conversation. My theory is once that tip collapses, the larger frontal area then just bursts the thin jacket bullet even before it tumbles. At lower impact velocity the bullet tumbles and may still burst or break up once sideways. At very low impact velocity it may just tumble

Anyway that is where I am coming from

Lou

 

[chamois]

When it comes to shooting game with match bullets we get many reports on the performance of ELDMs, TMKs, Scenars, SMKs, ... but very seldom hear about ATips...

What is the consensus here, anybody has had experience with them?

I have not shot anything as accurate in my 6,5x57R rifles as their 135 grainers, therefore my interest.

Thank You!

 

[Formidilosus]

When it comes to shooting game with match bullets we get many reports on the performance of ELDMs, TMKs, Scenars, SMKs, ... but very seldom hear about ATips...

What is the consensus here, anybody has had experience with them?

I have not shot anything as accurate in my 6,5x57R rifles as their 135 grainers, therefore my interest.

Thank You!

The 153gr 6.5mm’s are extremely variable. Some work well, fragmenting early; some remain point forward with no upset at all. The 135gr 6.5’s seem better, however I haven’t used enough production ones to say across the board. I believe @luke moffat uses them?

 

[luke moffat]

The 153gr 6.5mm’s are extremely variable. Some work well, fragmenting early; some remain point forward with no upset at all. The 135gr 6.5’s seem better, however I haven’t used enough production ones to say across the board. I believe @luke moffat uses them?

I’ve used them on caribou and deer. Haven’t gotten the chance to use them on a moose….yet Given what I have used them on I wouldn’t hesitate to use them on a moose at all.

 

[chamois]

I’ve used them on caribou and deer. Haven’t gotten the chance to use them on a moose….yet Given what I have used them on I wouldn’t hesitate to use them on a moose at all.

What kind of performance did you get regarding wound depth and diameter?
Thank you.

 

[Macintosh]

Match bullets are called match bullets because they are designed for optimum accuracy and in some cases highest possible BC. Contrary to some posts, it is not “marketing”. No features in a match bullet are put there, nor tested for hunting. For ex, a match bullet has no special design features to promote or control bullet expansion whether skivving, wide hollow point, jacket tapering, etc…. Often, match bullets have very thin, uniform jackets which are good for accuracy and have higher bc (more lead = more weight for given length = higher bc).

For ex, the eldm has a polymer tip and hollow point similar to eldx because hornady believes this results in a more reliable BC than a traditional match hp. On the eldx the tip is there for similar reason plus to initiate expansion. If you look at sectioned versions they are slighltly different hollow cavities behind the polymer tip. The eldm may expand but the feature is not there for expansion nor work as well as what is on the eldx in all situations

So - what does this mean. Match bullets can change or be tweaked in some way that may change terminal behavior and not be discovered. Heck, I have on several occassions seen significant ogive changes from hornady for ex let alone what is going on inside. Possibly why see some erratic results reported from works great on elk to blows up on deer. Berger is a good ex of this. They made their bullet jackets thicker and since a “hunting” bullet, tested it. Not results they wanted so now have 2 lines - hunting and target. If an edlm or tmk jacket or core hardness changed, most likely go unannounced

This is a great post and not taking away or disagreeing with anything discussed on terminal performance. Hunting bullets are designed to expand and penetrate a certain way and there is some QC around this. Match bullets are not even if they do happen to expand. This is why manufacturers do not recommend their match bullets for hunting. Food for thought…

Lou

I believe you were referring to my post with the "marketing" comment. Your post makes sense, but I think you are missing my point. I did not suggest that marketing is what makes a bullet perform or not perform well for any specific task such as "match shooting" or "hunting" or that there is no design intention and it's all smoke and mirrors. What I said was that if Sierra communicated (i.e. marketed) that hunting was an acceptable use of their TMK bullet without changing the product itself, no one would get their underwear in a bunch about people hunting with it, and this post might not exist. We have plenty of examples of bullets sold for hunting whose performance is hotly debated and often dismissed as unacceptably bad (see copper ammo topics), but no one gets flamed for using those bullets...yet here we have a bullet that the manufacturer says isnt recommended for "most" hunting and that it wont reliably "explosively expand" "at equivalent velocities in varmints compared to their lightly jacketed Hornet, Blitz or Varminter counterparts", yet we have dozens upon dozens of pictures of explosive expansion on big game from numerous people, coupled with assertions the company is ignoring or being willfully ignorant of performance on game in order to sell the bullet to mil/le, and people ignore or refute the demonstrated performance based only on the website copy.

Sierra: "record setting accuracy...not recommended for most hunting"
WKR's: "look at my catalog of necropsied animals shot with this bullet over many years that killed faster than anything else I've ever used...they say that to get around the mil/le requirement"
Skeptics: "BUt YoU Can'T Use A MaTcH BoOlEt foR huNtInG!" (apologies to the skeptics of this topic that actually dont eat crayons, I'm poking fun a bit)
(and around we go in endless circles)

Hence my question about what's in a name like "match bullet" (DOES that inherently say anything at all about terminal performance? Or is it ONLY a statement of consistency and higher BC, etc?). Which is also the reason for my observation that it is more-so that the company marketing calls it a match bullet and recommends agsint using it for "most" hunting, not the fact that it does or doesn't perform on game, that is largely responsible for people reacting so strongly. I don't see that conclusion changing regardless of whether the assertions about WHY Sierra markets it the way they do are true or not. Do you disagree?

 

[Flyjunky]

I believe you were referring to my post with the "marketing" comment. Your post makes sense, but I think you are missing my point. I did not suggest that marketing is what makes a bullet perform or not perform well for any specific task such as "match shooting" or "hunting" or that there is no design intention and it's all smoke and mirrors. What I said was that if Sierra communicated (i.e. marketed) that hunting was an acceptable use of their TMK bullet without changing the product itself, no one would get their underwear in a bunch about people hunting with it, and this post might not exist. We have plenty of examples of bullets sold for hunting whose performance is hotly debated and often dismissed as unacceptably bad (see copper ammo topics), but no one gets flamed for using those bullets...yet here we have a bullet that the manufacturer says isnt recommended for "most" hunting and that it wont reliably "explosively expand" "at equivalent velocities in varmints compared to their lightly jacketed Hornet, Blitz or Varminter counterparts", yet we have dozens upon dozens of pictures of explosive expansion on big game from numerous people, coupled with assertions the company is ignoring or being willfully ignorant of performance on game in order to sell the bullet to mil/le, and people ignore or refute the demonstrated performance based only on the website copy.

Sierra: "record setting accuracy...not recommended for most hunting"
WKR's: "look at my catalog of necropsied animals shot with this bullet over many years that killed faster than anything else I've ever used...they say that to get around the mil/le requirement"
Skeptics: "BUt YoU Can'T Use A MaTcH BoOlEt foR huNtInG!" (apologies to the skeptics of this topic that actually dont eat crayons, I'm poking fun a bit)
(and around we go in endless circles)

Hence my question about what's in a name like "match bullet" (DOES that inherently say anything at all about terminal performance? Or is it ONLY a statement of consistency and higher BC, etc?) as well as my observation that it is the fact that the company marketing calls it a match bullet and recommends agsint using it for "most" hunting, not the fact that it does or doesn't perform on game, that is largely responsible for people reacting so strongly. I don't see that conclusion changing regardless of whether the assertions about WHY Sierra markets it the way they do are true or not. Do you disagree?

This is the answer: “Or is it ONLY a statement of consistency and higher BC, etc?) as well as my observation that it is the fact that the company marketing calls it a match bullet and recommends agsint using it for "most" hunting, not the fact that it does or doesn't perform on game, that is largely responsible for people reacting so strongly”.

Like you said, if the match bullets were called hunting bullets but nothing about them was changed but the marketing, these discussions would be non-existent.

For me personally the only two times, that I know of, where I was very disappointed in performance were with “hunting” bullets. Both times it was a Barnes ttsx that penciled.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Flyjunky, for the sake of information to file away, what was the specific ttsx that penciled, and the velocity/range? Probably goes without asking, but you did recover the animals shot with the ttsx when they penciled and there was an unexpanded bullet diameter hole through the vitals of the animals?

 

[Flyjunky]

Flyjunky, for the sake of information to file away, what was the specific ttsx that penciled, and the velocity/range? Probably goes without asking, but you did recover the animals shot with the ttsx when they penciled and there was an unexpanded bullet diameter hole through the vitals of the animals?

Yes, the elk was at 478 yards with a 180 ttsx with a muzzle velocity of 3150. It was a perfect shot, no rib on entry or exit, caliber size entry and exit with probably a ~1/2” hole through the vitals. If I wouldn’t have seen the impact through the scope you would have never known the elk was hit. Not a single drop of blood in the snow and we found him about 90 yards away with his antlers hung up on a tree, otherwise he would have slid a long ways down. Almost the exact same situation on a mule deer at 425 yards, same bullet/gun.

Both animals died but my experiment with monos stopped after that. The bullets shot exceptional in my rifle.

Don’t get me wrong, every single bullet has good/bad but Bergers are just better for my style of hunting.

***penciled might not be the best description but I was expecting more internal damage. Full disclosure, my dad dropped his mule deer with a similar combo at something like 450 as if it was hit by lightning. I think his muzzle velocity was 3125 out of a 300wm.

 

[35WhelenAI]

Thanks Fly, appreciate the detail and you are right that different bullets work better for different styles. Even my stubborn azz has come to realize that despite 30 years of success with every generation of Barnes (X, TSX, TTSX) across many calibers and cartridges, there are other bullets that can accomplish the same thing. Not changing, mind you, but gotta be open to other ideas and experience or this place turns into a poop show.

 

[luke moffat]

They have been pass throughs so far as far as depth. I didn’t measure wound width or anything but they seem to work well.

It likely does help that I’m shooting them out of a 16” barrel 6.5 CM at only 2800 fps so the velocity isn’t the same as the 3k+ that the 24” barrel 6.5 CMs shoot them at or the even faster PRC would stress the bullet at higher velocities.

 

[bojangles808]

If your shots are almost all under 400’ish, AND you won’t push impact speeds below 2,100’ish FPS, and/or meat damage is a high priory- the Federal Terminal Ascent works well. However it is not an all range bullet and like all controlled expansion bullets at lower impact the velocities it creates narrow wounds.
The reason I bring this up, is because the 30/06 and the 308 actually, with bullets such as TMK’s start to get into serious tissue damage levels. If I’m shooting them, that’s what I want- just a warning.


For the 30/06 I’d load either the 175gr TMK, or more likely the 195gr TMK.

this thread is an eye opener, really appreciate all your insight. so just confirming don't go lower than 2100 fps for elk with the 30.06 175 Terminal Ascent? I see 1350 and 1400 fps touted in reviews for min expansion but that would be more marketing speak and minimal wound channels in your opinion?

 

[Formidilosus]

this thread is an eye opener, really appreciate all your insight. so just confirming don't go lower than 2100 fps for elk with the 30.06 175 Terminal Ascent? I see 1350 and 1400 fps touted in reviews for min expansion but that would be more marketing speak and minimal wound channels in your opinion?

Wounding is significantly reduced below 2,100-,2,200fps impact. That 1,400fps “expansion” is barely, if not quite, bullet diameter.

 

[Lou270]

I believe you were referring to my post with the "marketing" comment. Your post makes sense, but I think you are missing my point. I did not suggest that marketing is what makes a bullet perform or not perform well for any specific task such as "match shooting" or "hunting" or that there is no design intention and it's all smoke and mirrors. What I said was that if Sierra communicated (i.e. marketed) that hunting was an acceptable use of their TMK bullet without changing the product itself, no one would get their underwear in a bunch about people hunting with it, and this post might not exist. We have plenty of examples of bullets sold for hunting whose performance is hotly debated and often dismissed as unacceptably bad (see copper ammo topics), but no one gets flamed for using those bullets...yet here we have a bullet that the manufacturer says isnt recommended for "most" hunting and that it wont reliably "explosively expand" "at equivalent velocities in varmints compared to their lightly jacketed Hornet, Blitz or Varminter counterparts", yet we have dozens upon dozens of pictures of explosive expansion on big game from numerous people, coupled with assertions the company is ignoring or being willfully ignorant of performance on game in order to sell the bullet to mil/le, and people ignore or refute the demonstrated performance based only on the website copy.

Sierra: "record setting accuracy...not recommended for most hunting"
WKR's: "look at my catalog of necropsied animals shot with this bullet over many years that killed faster than anything else I've ever used...they say that to get around the mil/le requirement"
Skeptics: "BUt YoU Can'T Use A MaTcH BoOlEt foR huNtInG!" (apologies to the skeptics of this topic that actually dont eat crayons, I'm poking fun a bit)
(and around we go in endless circles)

Hence my question about what's in a name like "match bullet" (DOES that inherently say anything at all about terminal performance? Or is it ONLY a statement of consistency and higher BC, etc?). Which is also the reason for my observation that it is more-so that the company marketing calls it a match bullet and recommends agsint using it for "most" hunting, not the fact that it does or doesn't perform on game, that is largely responsible for people reacting so strongly. I don't see that conclusion changing regardless of whether the assertions about WHY Sierra markets it the way they do are true or not. Do you disagree?

Sorry - missed this. I am not at all disagreeing that these bullets can be used for hunting.

Match bullets are designed for optimum accuracy and in some cases combined with highest possible BC. When the bullets are tested they have higher accuracy standards than hunting bullets

Hunting bullets for big game are designed to initiate expansion, control expansion, and retain weight for penetration generally. The exception is the berger which advertises fragmentation basically. In any case, any of these features compromise accuracy. There is a reason that most match bullets use thin uniform jackets with minimal complexities. Hunting bullets can get much more complex at the cost of accuracy/bc

For ex, all of the sierra “big game” bullets advertise some form of controlled expansion/tapered jacket. So, I dont think they would ever call the tmk a “hunting bullet” because it lacks this feature. I dont know if there is any difference in core hardness between hunting/match sierra bullets as well. So if Sierra were to call the tmk a hunting bullet they would change it and likely, it would basically be the tgk. You or I may not think it is necessary for a game bullet to have some of these features, but Sierra apparently does. That is why I am saying it is not just labeling or marketing and its a moot point for Sierra to just call it a hunting bullet. Hornady does same with their eldm/eldx lines

Lou

 

[EJFS]

Some great information in this thread, but I'm stuck on page two with the "hit probability" diagrams. Am I reading them correctly in that the best case scenario at 600 yds is something like a 50% hit probability? What am I missing here because that seems entirely unethical?

 

[BBob]

but I'm stuck on page two

Page one?

something like a 50% hit probability?

Disclaimer: I quickly read through the posts so I may not have it perfectly correct.

In his example I believe it is switching winds from 8-12 mph so in his example that’s the reality of hit rates if you don’t make the correct wind calls. I assume it shows if you held correctly for a 10 mph wind and didn’t change that hold as the wind fluctuated between 8 & 12 mph the wind would cause the hit rates as specified.

So if that’s all correct the burden is on you to take the shot or not in those conditions. Can you guess the correct wind hold in those circumstances?

 

[Formidilosus]

Some great information in this thread, but I'm stuck on page two with the "hit probability" diagrams. Am I reading them correctly in that the best case scenario at 600 yds is something like a 50% hit probability? What am I missing here because that seems entirely unethical?

It’s a 1st round hit probability in moderate conditions with a “trained” shooter on a 12” target. On average “trained” shooters that do shoot and practice at range, but who do not shoot in novel broken terrain with moderate winds of 8-10mph constantly, are on average within +/-4 mph on their wind call.

That is, they look at a shot, judge it at 7mph full value from the left- and yet those winds may actually be switched at some point in between the target and them due to terrain, may be 4mph, may be 11mph, or maybe half value.

Unless someone shoots in novel (that is previously unshot/unknown terrain and targets) in wind, frequently and log their 1st round hits, they have no idea how low their hit rates are. Shooting a piece of steel at 600 or 800 yards on a range off bench is not in any way analogous to a 1st shot in broken terrain.

 

[Lou270]

Hit probability is not really useful without context. For ex at what range are all hits in a 12” diameter circle for say a .5 vs .6 BC bullet. That will tell you how much BC improves things everything else being equal. I did the math a while back and rule of thumb I came up with is each .1 increase added about 50 yards. Wind doping ability is vastly more important than BC for anything beyond “traditional” long range for anything more than few mph wind as being off even couple mph is a miss at long range regardless of BC

Lou