Why Match/Target Bullets For Hunting

[Formidilosus]

Form, the 95% hit rate/4 MOA scenario above strikes at the heart of why I am mentally programmed not to see the value of a match bullet and part of why I asked the initial question. That paints a more realistic picture of me as a shooter, in the way I assess myself at any rate. In the deep south, opportunities for long shots (200 + yards would be long) are very rare. Your comparison shows a 15 yard difference in 95% hit distance. Couple in the fact that not all match bullets have good wounding characteristics, and that's why I have favored more reliable copper and lead "hunting" bullets.

Good stuff brother. I appreciate it.

For your use cases, the external ballistics of match bullets don’t come into play really. So unless you want the wide wounds that certain ones create, they don’t do much at those ranges.

 

[PBBananaHammock]

On the subject of match bullets for hunting, I just want to post this here in case anyone was interested…

Check out the book “Practical guide to long range hunting cartridges - 2nd edition” by Nathan Foster. Over 500 pages of terminal ballistic research on game animals, match bullet construction and usage, necropsy pictures, and information on most any calibers use at long range. It’s probably the biggest collection of information on match bullets for hunting that you’ll find in one place.

It was published in 2017 (1st edition was 2013), but the key players in match bullets were already around. Just for context this was around the time of the introduction of the 147g Eldm. Hopefully he releases a third edition, but regardless if you can internalize the principles of terminal ballistics and bullet construction, you can apply the same logic to any new bullet design.

Foster has been researching terminal ballistics on live game for over a decade in New Zealand. So he has year round opportunities to hunt/cull game. From goats, to 1200lb ferral cattle. He runs the site ballisticstudies which includes a plethora of info, a forum, and it’s where his books can be purchased. The forum is mostly New Zealand boys, Aussies, South Africans, and Europeans with lots of interesting perspectives and experiences.

Nathan is pretty old school. His preferences reflect that in his books and it’s most notable in his favored traditional shooting style which is best applied with heavy recoiling field rifles. However, he consistently drops animals at over 1000 yards regularly, so just in case some of his preferences don’t jive with the current PRS influenced group think, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. There’s more than one way to skin a cat. His research into the science of terminal ballistics and bullet construction is fantastic and well worth the cost of the read.

Info on match bullets and real terminal performance on live animals is few and far in between. If you like stuff like this, vote with your dollar, and support those who put in the time and effort.

On a closing note, there’s plenty of info on bonded bullets, cup and cores, monolithics, and etc for anyone interested in those as well.

Here are a few good article ls to wet the whistle with…

How bullets kill:
https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/Effective+Game+Killing.html

Monolithics can be inhumane:
https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/Homogenous+copper+bullets+can+be+inhumane.html

 

[Formidilosus]

On the subject of match bullets for hunting, I just want to post this here in case anyone was interested…

Check out the book “Practical guide to long range hunting cartridges - 2nd edition” by Nathan Foster. Over 500 pages of terminal ballistic research on game animals, match bullet construction and usage, necropsy pictures, and information on most any calibers use at long range. It’s probably the biggest collection of information on match bullets for hunting that you’ll find in one place.

It was published in 2017 (1st edition was 2013), but the key players in match bullets were already around. Just for context this was around the time of the introduction of the 147g Eldm. Hopefully he releases a third edition, but regardless if you can internalize the principles of terminal ballistics and bullet construction, you can apply the same logic to any new bullet design.

Foster has been researching terminal ballistics on live game for over a decade in New Zealand. So he has year round opportunities to hunt/cull game. From goats, to 1200lb ferral cattle. He runs the site ballisticstudies which includes a plethora of info, a forum, and it’s where his books can be purchased. The forum is mostly New Zealand boys, Aussies, South Africans, and Europeans with lots of interesting perspectives and experiences.

Nathan is pretty old school. His preferences reflect that in his books and it’s most notable in his favored traditional shooting style which is best applied with heavy recoiling field rifles. However, he consistently drops animals at over 1000 yards regularly, so just in case some of his preferences don’t jive with the current PRS influenced group think, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. There’s more than one way to skin a cat. His research into the science of terminal ballistics and bullet construction is fantastic and well worth the cost of the read.

Info on match bullets and real terminal performance on live animals is few and far in between. If you like stuff like this, vote with your dollar, and support those who put in the time and effort.

On a closing note, there’s plenty of info on bonded bullets, cup and cores, monolithics, and etc for anyone interested in those as well.

Here are a few good article ls to wet the whistle with…

How bullets kill:
https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/Effective+Game+Killing.html

Monolithics can be inhumane:
https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/Homogenous+copper+bullets+can+be+inhumane.html

The issue is that there are so many myths, misconceptions, and outright falsehoods in regards to terminal ballistics that he writes, let alone what he has wrote in his books about rifles, that all of it must be viewed with a very critical eye. So critical, that most people could not decipher real, observable and measurable effects; from old wives tales and outdated long medically disproven theories.


There are links in this thread IIRC that take you straight to the most comprehensive temrinal ballistics research, by the largest terminal ballistics lab on earth, with all of it being medically peer reviewed data that totally refuted things he writes and shows medically why it isn’t real.

 

[PBBananaHammock]

The issue is that there are so many myths, misconceptions, and outright falsehoods in regards to terminal ballistics that he writes, let alone what he has wrote in his books about rifles, that all of it must be viewed with a very critical eye. So critical, that most people could not decipher real, observable and measurable effects; from old wives tales and outdated long medically disproven theories.


There are links in this thread IIRC that take you straight to the most comprehensive temrinal ballistics research, by the largest terminal ballistics lab on earth, with all of it being medically peer reviewed data that totally refuted things he writes and shows medically why it isn’t real.

I agree with that. You get opinions and myths with any written work though. Especially when data is so few and far in between like the subject of match bullet terminal effects. One really has to know the correct questions to ask to find good info on match bullets for hunting and a pretty solid understanding of bullet construction to validate what info is found.

I’m very glad you posted so many links in this thread. Simply outstanding collection of sources laid out in an easily digestible manner. The first time I encountered Dr Gary Roberts was a podcast on pistol ammunition and I was hooked.

However you can still take in other info from diverse sources, even if anecdotal, and use logic and a healthy dose of skepticism to discern the good from the questionable. It’s s requirement on basically any forum. A forum, like a newspaper may be 90% BS but if you are aware of that the 10% truth you gain can be worthwhile. Like what can be gained from this thread.

Foster has a lot of good info and visuals in that book on bullet construction and sets a foundation for an understanding on how they work. Things like the hydrostatic shock can be viewed with skepticism because it can’t measured. He also sets down recomended game weights for various calibers that I don’t agree with. But a lot of ppl seem to post the same questions: “what will x match bullet do vs y?” If you apply fundamentals of bullet construction, like the book tries to lay out, you can make a pretty good educated guess of how they’ll behave.

Fundamentals like stout vs soft, shedding mass vs holding on to it for wounding, heavier bullets penetrating deeper, etc, when combined with visual aids of the internals of a match bullet can all be gained from his work. It’s good foundational info that if more ppl could understand, they would not dismiss certain “match” bullets from hunting uses.

However, I agree that if you are a person who just takes in all info hook line and sinker you could absorb some myths, misconceptions, and falsehoods.

 

[jimh406]

As has been said many times, there are a lot of factors that can affect bullet performance. It's virtually impossible to have exactly the same situation more than once.

I think most of us have heard good/bad things about almost every bullet made. You can ignore the guidance of the manufacturers if you want, but I choose to trust them a bit. That means I use what the manufacturers call "hunting" bullets for hunting.

 

[Ryan Avery]

As has been said many times, there are a lot of factors that can affect bullet performance. It's virtually impossible to have exactly the same situation more than once.

I think most of us have heard good/bad things about almost every bullet made. You can ignore the guidance of the manufacturers if you want, but I choose to trust them a bit. That means I use what the manufacturers call "hunting" bullets for hunting.

That’s great!

That leaves more “killing” bullets for me.

 

[PBBananaHammock]

As has been said many times, there are a lot of factors that can affect bullet performance. It's virtually impossible to have exactly the same situation more than once.

I think most of us have heard good/bad things about almost every bullet made. You can ignore the guidance of the manufacturers if you want, but I choose to trust them a bit. That means I use what the manufacturers call "hunting" bullets for hunting.

Fair enough. That’s your choice.

I’m curious though, and I’m not being a smart ass. Hypothetically, if you needed a full blown rifle cartridge for a self defense purpose, I’m sure you would pick an ammo made and recommended by manufacturers for putting down aggressive Homo sapiens.

Ammo like Hornady black (amax/eldm) or federal law enforcement TRU (tmk).

Why would that same ammo be any less effective when applied to a deer of roughly the same body weight and dimensions as homo sapien? That very round was recommended for killing equally sized targets by those same manufacturers.

 

[willfrye027]

The good news is when you hit an animal in the lungs, it’s going to die. In the aftermath you can decide if the tissue damage was good enough.

I appreciate all the information I can get my hands on…in the end terminal ballistics in animal tissue probably involves too many variables to get black and white answers.

Threads like the .223/TMK and other anecdotal experience, backed up by what I see in the tissue of game I kill, is what I am using to drive decisions around what bullets to use or not use.

Shoot the damn thing in the lungs, take 5 minutes after you quarter the animal to see what actually happened in the tissue, and go from there.

 

[jimh406]

Why would that same ammo be any less effective when applied to a deer of roughly the same body weight and dimensions as homo sapien? That very round was recommended for killing equally sized targets by those same manufacturers.

I don't know any people who are as large as or as tough as some wild game. Just talking about the Hornady line. They don't mention ELD-M for hunting at all. For the ELD-X, they have this quote.

In 2012, Hornady engineers were tasked with creating a new bullet. The main goal was to have a hunting bullet that worked well at all practical distances. Plenty of bullets work well from 0-400 yards, few work well beyond that and none work well at both conventional and extended range.

I think practical distances is the key. People could have a different idea of what "practical" means. Hornady quote says "none" work well at conventional and extended range.

Some may want to give up close range performance for expansion at what distances further than what Hornady calls "practical". It's a tradeoff. What people choose to tradeoff can vary.

 

[PBBananaHammock]

I don't know any people who are as large as or as tough as some wild game. Just talking about the Hornady line. They don't mention ELD-M for hunting at all. For the ELD-X, they have this quote.

In 2012, Hornady engineers were tasked with creating a new bullet. The main goal was to have a hunting bullet that worked well at all practical distances. Plenty of bullets work well from 0-400 yards, few work well beyond that and none work well at both conventional and extended range.

I think practical distances is the key. People could have a different idea of what "practical" means. Hornady quote says "none" work well at conventional and extended range.

Some may want to give up close range performance for expansion at what distances further than what Hornady calls "practical". It's a tradeoff. What people choose to tradeoff can vary.

You are not wrong about different use cases but let me suggest a use case that no one mentions.

Everyone always thinks match bullets are only for long range. I use match bullets in suppressed short-barreled bolt action rifles with mild cartridges because I’ve never personally needed to shoot past “practical” ranges on animals. At muzzle velocities of 2400fps, I have no concern of shallow penetration. It turns a match bullet into an “all range” bullet at the expense of some distance.

My rifles are fundamentally the same as early 20th century rifles in calibers like 303 British, 300 savage, and 30-30. They too used heavy for caliber frangibles like the Winchester silver tip. Instead of using outdated designs like the silvertips, I’m using the same principle of bullet construction and wounding but with modern sleeker profiles to enhance external ballistics. Anything tougher is on the edge of reliability and inhumane

My rifles are the same length and weight as a traditional hunting rifles, easier to shoot, fly better, don’t require ear pro, and they kill faster at the same traditional ranges.

All of this to say it is use case, and even if you hunt at traditional hunting ranges there is still a place for frangible ammo. Don’t disregard it as something for long range guys.

 

[Zerk]

What I don't like about these discussion, is the people who will say " the animal is dead and doesn't know the difference". Was it the best and quickest way to do it? I hunt in thick woods in the snowbelt of south lake superior. I don't see many deer, and if it runs 100 yards can feel like a 1000.

I am not shooting great distances so normally it doesn't even matter about match grade accuracy. I am getting ready for my first western trip though. But still within 200-400 yards.

With big calibers, you already got a big hole, but with smaller calibers in my uneducated opinion expansion is good. You can also debate expansion vs pentration, but I am not sure that is what this thread is about.

 

[Unckebob]

Ammo like Hornady black (amax/eldm) or federal law enforcement TRU (tmk).

Why would that same ammo be any less effective when applied to a deer of roughly the same body weight and dimensions as homo sapien? That very round was recommended for killing equally sized targets by those same manufacturers.

Regardless of the similarities, human anatomy and deer anatomy are significantly different. I doubt the police sniper expects to shoot standing targets with a body depth of less than 10".

From a public perception point of view, I doubt police could get away with shooting a "game" bullet.

Military Note: the military is limited on what they can shoot by the Geneva Convention. This, they cannot shoot "hollow point" ammo.

 

[BjornF16]

Military Note: the military is limited on what they can shoot by the Geneva Convention. This, they cannot shoot "hollow point" ammo.

That’s not quite correct.

LOAC prohibits bullets designed to fragment. Military is allowed to use open tip match bullets.

 

[doc holiday13]

I'll jump in since I feel like I might have been on the cutting edge over a decade ago. I have used bonded bullets, solid mono bullets, and match bullets

I actually switched to match bullets because they had such an immediate and devastating effect. I stopped shooting match bullets in favor of mono bullets but i won't shoot mono's unless i can launch them at 2900+ fps. Haven't killed anything beyond 300 yards at this point. I just got a 7 PRC together and will be using 160 copper solids and Ballistics say I'll be capable in mono's at ~700-800.

They all work and you should just use what mentally checks out for you. I have my reasons for what I do, but i'd consider shooting match bullets again because I can't argue with the results I've seen first hand

 

[Zerk]

Hunter opposed to a sniper, you heart shoot me and I am not running.

Blood trail is probably less of concern for sniper too.

 

[TJudeB]

Gonna throw fuel on the fire. Now, I wouldn't hunt elk with this round but with Mule deer and smaller game, I wouldn't hesitate.

I use the Hornady 6.5 Grendel ELD Match bullets. They have produced very impressive terminal ballistics. I have made a few necropsy videos that show the results on pig and whitetail deer.

I have had beautiful mushroomed bullets and cores completely separate from the jacket. It made no difference. I've had great penetration and every hit has been completely catastrophic. When you shoot a smaller caliber, you have to focus on your marksmanship. Makes you a better hunter IMO.

ALSO, I know the difference between a necropsy and an autopsy. YouTube folk seem to search the word Autopsy more often than necropsy. #clickbait

 

[35WhelenAI]

I can appreciate what you shared with the devastating effects. Devastating is as devastating does. I disagree wholeheartedly that a smaller caliber makes anyone a better hunter. Probably didn't mean it to come out that way, but it did none the less.

Hunting is putting one's self in position to take whatever species being sought. Some will call hunting setting up deliberately with the intent being beyond 600 yards, some spot and stalk to get within a lesser amount of yardage for a shot. The final act, so to speak, is putting any responsible projectile from any caliber in the proper place regardless of method. The shot is not hunting, IMO, it's a means to the end.

 

[Marbles]

Fair enough. That’s your choice.

I’m curious though, and I’m not being a smart ass. Hypothetically, if you needed a full blown rifle cartridge for a self defense purpose, I’m sure you would pick an ammo made and recommended by manufacturers for putting down aggressive Homo sapiens.

Ammo like Hornady black (amax/eldm) or federal law enforcement TRU (tmk).

Why would that same ammo be any less effective when applied to a deer of roughly the same body weight and dimensions as homo sapien? That very round was recommended for killing equally sized targets by those same manufacturers.

Going up against the most dangerous animal certainly presents challenges. I know of a case (I'm going to keep the very general because it is the Internet, but the source I got this from was as reliable as possible) where a team going through a door got lit up, first man through was killed before he could fire a shot, second man through got hit with 24 AK-47 rounds, 19 were not stopped by his body armor, one struck the action of his primary before he got a shot off and it was put out of commission. The rest of the team broke of because walking everyone into a kill box is stupid. The second man through pulled his secondary and killed the 4 combatants that lit him up and was still alive 10 years later.

So, hunters concerns about rapid incapacitation are pretty insignificant when compared to its potential importance in human on human encounters. Humans have certainly been known to lay down and die, but only a fool assumes it looks anything like the movies where everyone does that other than the main characters.

LE rounds also need to perform after going through barriers, hopefully no hunters are taking game that way. If anything, this need would lead to bullets that are too tough, so when LE goes with a round that is more frangible than a hunting bullet it says hunters are probably too caught up in penetration and pretty mushrooms. I have certainly been guilty of that at times.

Anyway, this thread was informative and needs a a zombie incantation.

 

[PNWGATOR]

Going up against the most dangerous animal certainly presents challenges. I know of a case (I'm going to keep the very general because it is the Internet, but the source I got this from was as reliable as possible) where a team going through a door got lit up, first man through was killed before he could fire a shot, second man through got hit with 24 AK-47 rounds, 19 were not stopped by his body armor, one struck the action of his primary before he got a shot off and it was put out of commission. The rest of the team broke of because walking everyone into a kill box is stupid. The second man through pulled his secondary and killed the 4 combatants that lit him up and was still alive 10 years later.

So, hunters concerns about rapid incapacitation are pretty insignificant when compared to its potential importance in human on human encounters. Humans have certainly been known to lay down and die, but only a fool assumes it looks anything like the movies where everyone does that other than the main characters.

LE rounds also need to perform after going through barriers, hopefully no hunters are taking game that way. If anything, this need would lead to bullets that are too tough, so when LE goes with a round that is more frangible than a hunting bullet it says hunters are probably too caught up in penetration and pretty mushrooms. I have certainly been guilty of that at times.

Anyway, this thread was informative and needs a a zombie incantation.

Appreciate you sharing.

Godspeed to these men. Damn fine men.

 

[PBBananaHammock]

So, hunters concerns about rapid incapacitation are pretty insignificant when compared to its potential importance in human on human encounters. Humans have certainly been known to lay down and die, but only a fool assumes it looks anything like the movies where everyone does that other than the main characters.

LE rounds also need to perform after going through barriers, hopefully no hunters are taking game that way. If anything, this need would lead to bullets that are too tough, so when LE goes with a round that is more frangible than a hunting bullet it says hunters are probably too caught up in penetration and pretty mushrooms. I have certainly been guilty of that at times.

Anyway, this thread was informative and needs a a zombie incantation.

Penetration is subjective based on the role. According to a podcast with Dr Roberts on primary&secondary (idk the episode) engineers making defensive and law enforcement ammunition seek barrier blindness on things like thick clothing and furniture. While at the same time they don’t want pass throughs on bodies that could impact innocents in a crowd or across the block. Military requirements like steel tip is something else entirely.

Hence if you want a pass through with a blood trail, maybe look elsewhere.

The point prior being that its a fallacy that some believe a round deemed adequate by ammunition manufacturers for use on dangerous 120-220lb apes, is somehow also inadequate for a 120-220lb ungulate… It is, like traditional hunting ammo, perfectly adequate when used within its design thresholds.

Agreed on that last point. It should be a QR code on the front of every box of ammo sold.